We have a sanity check in the irange storage code to make sure that
reading back a cache entry we have just written to yields exactly the
same range. There's no need to do this only for integers. This patch
moves the code to a more generic place.
However, doing so tickles a latent bug in the frange code where a
range is being pessimized from [0.0, 1.0] to [-0.0, 1.0]. Exclude
checking frange's until this bug is fixed.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* value-range-storage.cc (irange_storage::set_irange): Move
verification code from here...
(vrange_storage::set_vrange): ...to here.
---
gcc/value-range-storage.cc | 20 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/value-range-storage.cc b/gcc/value-range-storage.cc
index f00474ad0e6..09a29776a0e 100644
--- a/gcc/value-range-storage.cc
+++ b/gcc/value-range-storage.cc
@@ -165,6 +165,19 @@ vrange_storage::set_vrange (const vrange &r)
}
else
gcc_unreachable ();
+
+ // Verify that reading back from the cache didn't drop bits.
+ if (flag_checking
+ // FIXME: Avoid checking frange, as it currently pessimizes some ranges:
+ //
+ // gfortran.dg/pr49472.f90 pessimizes [0.0, 1.0] into [-0.0, 1.0].
+ && !is_a <frange> (r)
+ && !r.undefined_p ())
+ {
+ Value_Range tmp (r);
+ get_vrange (tmp, r.type ());
+ gcc_checking_assert (tmp == r);
+ }
}
// Restore R from storage.
@@ -306,13 +319,6 @@ irange_storage::set_irange (const irange &r)
irange_bitmask bm = r.m_bitmask;
write_wide_int (val, len, bm.value ());
write_wide_int (val, len, bm.mask ());
-
- if (flag_checking)
- {
- int_range_max tmp;
- get_irange (tmp, r.type ());
- gcc_checking_assert (tmp == r);
- }
}
static inline void
--
2.44.0
