Hi Aldy,
> On 10/15/19 7:58 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Aldy,
>>
>>>>> ~[0,0] has been the accepted way for a long time, I'd really prefer to
>>>>> keep that (for now).
>>>> It has. Very true. But I don't necessarily think that means we should
>>>> be introducing even more of 'em.
>> [...]
>>> Happily, normalizing into ~0 for signed and [1,MAX] for unsigned,
>>> simplified the patch because it on longer needs tweaks to
>>> ranges_from_anti_range.
>>>
>>> OK for trunk?
>>
>> the new testcase FAILs on several (all?) 32-bit targets:
>>
>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/evrp4.c scan-tree-dump evrp "\\\\[1B, -1B\\\\]"
>
> That's unfortunate.
>
> Is this the only test that is failing?
it's the only on on Solaris/SPARC and Solaris/x86. Haven't checked
other affected targets, though.
>> I'm seeing this on 32-bit i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11,
>> with more reports for armv8l, pru, and s390x.
>>
>> Comparing the dumps between 64 and 32-bit, I see
>>
>> -_1: int * [1B, -1B]
>> +_1: int * [1B, 4294967295B]
>
> I wonder why 32-bit targets at displaying 4294967295 instead of -1. Or are
> pointers 64-bits here?
No, it's a pure 32-bit target. The compiler is 32-bit, too, but
bi-arch (32 and 64-bit).
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
