On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > Tweaking it so that (6<<X)==0 becomes X>=31 for TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS and > > > false for TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED is probably more controversial. > > > > Hm, yes. I think signed overflow != shift amount overflow, so testing the > > overflow macros for this isn't valid. > > Would it be ok to always turn it to X>=31 then? (the value 31 is conveniently > already computed in 'cand')
I think so. Richard.