On 11/20/2015 10:04 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
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?
That's a call for the release managers. I typically don't backport
anything expect ICE or incorrect code generation fixes as I tend to be
very conservative on what goes onto a release branch.
Jakub, Richi or Joseph would need to ack into a release branch.
jeff
