On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This is the 2nd thing I came up with after looking at PR64277.
> VRP does a poor job computing value-ranges of unrolled loop IVs
> thus a very simple thing to do is to factor in previous VRP results
> by intersecting
Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Then it probably should be ok. I'm really afraid of emitting more warnings
with such high false positive rate now.
As the patch also mitigates some of the code bloat we get with
the complete peeling (regression against
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:18:32PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok for trunk? Or should I delay this to GCC 6?
Does this work even without the other patch?
Yes, I've actually developed 2/2 first. The other patch only ever
emits more
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:06:11PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
This is the 2nd thing I came up with after looking at PR64277.
VRP does a poor job computing value-ranges of unrolled loop IVs
thus a very simple thing to do is to factor in
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:28:02PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Sure - but for unrolling
int a[2];
for (int i = 0; i 5; i++)
a[i] = i;
I'd like to see warnings and we only warn if we unroll this because
the value-range of i includes indexes that are valid.
Don't we warn here for
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:18:32PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok for trunk? Or should I delay this to GCC 6?
Does this work even without the other patch?
Yes, I've actually developed 2/2 first. The other patch only ever
emits more
This is the 2nd thing I came up with after looking at PR64277.
VRP does a poor job computing value-ranges of unrolled loop IVs
thus a very simple thing to do is to factor in previous VRP results
by intersecting what VRP2 computes with recorded SSA name range infos
(that also makes errors in those
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:06:11PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
This is the 2nd thing I came up with after looking at PR64277.
VRP does a poor job computing value-ranges of unrolled loop IVs
thus a very simple thing to do is to factor in previous VRP results
by intersecting what VRP2
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:18:32PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok for trunk? Or should I delay this to GCC 6?
Does this work even without the other patch?
Yes, I've actually developed 2/2 first. The other patch only ever
emits more warnings...
Then it probably should be ok. I'm