Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-23 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice transitions in VRP,

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-23 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: ... for this. We should never produce UNDEFINED when the input wasn't UNDEFINED already. Why? Because doing so _always_ means an invalid lattice transition. UNDEFINED is TOP, anything not UNDEFINED is not TOP. So

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-23 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: ... for this. We should never produce UNDEFINED when the input wasn't UNDEFINED already. Why? Because doing so _always_ means an invalid lattice transition. UNDEFINED

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-23 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: So, one question, are you claiming that a VRP worker like this: VR derive_new_range_from_operation (VR a, VR b) is _ever_ allowed to return UNDEFINED when a or b is something else than UNDEFINED? You seem to claim so AFAIU, but at

[PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-22 Thread Richard Biener
This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice transitions in VRP, so the following adds that since we now can produce a lot more UNDEFINED than before not doing so triggers issues. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. Richard. 2012-10-22 Richard

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-22 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice transitions in VRP, That makes sense, because the individual parts of VRP that produce new ranges are supposed to not generate invalid transitions. So if anything such checking

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-22 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice transitions in VRP, That makes sense, because the individual parts of VRP that produce new ranges are supposed to not generate

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55011

2012-10-22 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote: This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice transitions in VRP, That makes sense, because the individual parts of