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 33FD13858C74; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:42:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 33FD13858C74
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1673523725;
	bh=LGtGkO1FQr9DWGWiCsjy2SfO31YxMfLC7jKncVldzNA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=PYBy7xY8zqm2OrGc6offtyRRV2CbeSuHg4VxHdwslRxfOfcStZnvBeRQTreOyV832
	 e50/K5KWUKZoxWbwFq9jipUK8anPnQkAA9VQN5B7xCSo86X6mLnsCR/axRXqkohPOQ
	 62u8qnJOxSGoFDQ1MN6y+PCBA0cPJJUbDZ4a8FMk=
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107608] [13 Regression] Failure on
 fold-overflow-1.c and pr95115.c
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:42:02 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.isobsolete attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-107608-4-JzmhVDgq8W@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107608-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107608-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107608

Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #54224|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 54253
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D54253&action=3Dedit
proposed patch

So where are we on this?  Do we want to do something like this for this
release, or something else entirely?

This is a variation of the previous patch that instead of setting varying,
avoids the singleton by returning:

[INF, INF]   =3D> [+MAX, +INF]
[-INF, -INF] =3D> [-INF, -MIN]=