From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id E6CC93861834; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:27:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E6CC93861834
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/101254] [12 Regression] gcc head does not
 comply fully to -fwrapv since r12-1723
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:27:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101254-4-ftnreBt6oS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101254-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101254-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:27:05 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101254

--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Comment on attachment 51084 [details]
> another patch
>=20
> Except for some consistency (max is in comments lowercase, but MIN is
> uppercase), it looks good to me.

latest version i had already switched those to +INF and -INF terminology.=20
Running thru testing now.=20

> Slightly OT, wonder if something tries to handle even the swapped argumen=
ts,
> i.e. relation op1 < op2 and subtraction op2 - op1.  But that can be done
> incrementally if not done yet...

Not sure I follow.  Why would we be interested in swapping operands of a mi=
nus?=