On 9/5/23 01:46, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:09 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 9/1/23 20:32, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
This turns out to be a latent bug in ssa_name_has_boolean_range
where it would return true for all boolean types but all of the
> Does Ada have signed booleans that are BOOLEAN_TYPE but do _not_
> have [-1, 0] as range? I think documenting [0, 1] for (single-bit
> precision?) unsigned BOOLEAN_TYPE and [-1, 1] for signed BOOLEAN_TYPE would
> be conservative.
All BOOLEAN_TYPEs are unsigned in Ada but may have precision >
On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 4:33 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This turns out to be a latent bug in ssa_name_has_boolean_range
> where it would return true for all boolean types but all of the
> uses of ssa_name_has_boolean_range was expecting 0/1 as the range
> rather than [-1,0].
> So
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:09 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/1/23 20:32, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This turns out to be a latent bug in ssa_name_has_boolean_range
> > where it would return true for all boolean types but all of the
> > uses of
On 9/1/23 20:32, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
This turns out to be a latent bug in ssa_name_has_boolean_range
where it would return true for all boolean types but all of the
uses of ssa_name_has_boolean_range was expecting 0/1 as the range
rather than [-1,0].
So when I fixed vector
This turns out to be a latent bug in ssa_name_has_boolean_range
where it would return true for all boolean types but all of the
uses of ssa_name_has_boolean_range was expecting 0/1 as the range
rather than [-1,0].
So when I fixed vector lower to do all comparisons in boolean_type
rather than still
