Ughh, you're touching everything I'm nuking next release ;-).
But yes, that's an oversight.
OK.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:48 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> when vrange_printer::visit gets a VR_ANTI_RANGE it should print it
> as such, not just print the first element as range. When
> irange::num_pairs and upper/lower_bound are fixed that would no
> longer print a canonicalized anti-range.
>
> * value-range-pretty-print.cc (vrange_printer::visit):
> Handle all VR_ANTI_RANGE specially.
> ---
> gcc/value-range-pretty-print.cc | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/value-range-pretty-print.cc b/gcc/value-range-pretty-print.cc
> index d20e2562431..23817f48a3d 100644
> --- a/gcc/value-range-pretty-print.cc
> +++ b/gcc/value-range-pretty-print.cc
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ vrange_printer::visit (const irange &r) const
> return;
> }
> // Handle legacy symbolics.
> - if (!r.constant_p ())
> + if (!r.constant_p () || r.kind () == VR_ANTI_RANGE)
> {
> if (r.kind () == VR_ANTI_RANGE)
> pp_character (pp, '~');
> --
> 2.35.3
>
