On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:31:41AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/18/2015 11:20 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:36:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > >>Otherwise ok. > > > >See modified patch below. If you think vrp98.c is unnecessary, feel free > >to dump it :). > > > >If ok, could you commit it for me please? I don't have commit access. > > > >Regards > >Senthil > > > >gcc/ChangeLog > >2015-11-19 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com> > > > > * tree.h (desired_pro_or_demotion_p): New function. > > * tree-vrp.c (simplify_cond_using_ranges): Call it. > > > >gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > >2015-11-19 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com> > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp98.c: New testcase. > > * gcc.target/avr/uint8-single-reg.c: New testcase. > I went ahead and committed this as-is. > > I do think the vrp98 testcase is useful as it verifies that VRP is doing > what we want in a target independent way. It's a good complement to the AVR > specific testcase.
I see the same problem on gcc-5-branch as well. Would it be ok to backport the fix to that branch as well? Regards Senthil > > Thanks, > Jeff >
