From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.140]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93F7386EC55 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 23:59:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org A93F7386EC55 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 23:59:32 +0000 To: David Malcolm From: "brian.sobulefsky" Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Reply-To: "brian.sobulefsky" Subject: Re: Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2kjoI-lyNji8HmMtXXtDIAN8A6fOHZzTSVfFanfvT4AVnqDwk5ULV5LMA349hKnWdNdMJzR-Z6xBXveZp2P8bVukhcLYh_Ejuo6IRwCQPTQ=@protonmail.com> <5f1dd86eca9c04e437aed56ca2522405b19bf1c6.camel@redhat.com> <584b3ab9a1d7c9d09d78131b3b3ccfe972c3cc27.camel@redhat.com> <0huAnRvDTsC7g9naydri1r5TUzAO2_Hd8PaCjpqirHEwZtBEhZmRwcTSxJX0UjN-E8APDOSjlnacz4nQHNCrxmiJQgmtlITO_ttZwjEeK5A=@protonmail.com> <4ccrt6kijzAomErbBOnzSq-3h7sJvt8YAusCTa4olTmW_fIq3qDiBhwokxO2ylttE_ptNY9dXsLiPL7QPLD8IMDsUNfIRCPOMQTmxoHsOpU=@protonmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 23:59:40 -0000 I'll send it. It is not too slow. I just figured I would try to fix the oth= ers but I get that it is easier for you to see changes in steps. Brian Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Friday, February 26, 2021 8:36 AM, David Malcolm w= rote: > On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 04:23 +0000, brian.sobulefsky wrote: > > > Hi, > > I have implemented the discussed change, bootstrapped, and run the > > testsuite. I > > would be submitting except to my disappointment I saw failures > > increase by 4. As > > it turns out, these "failures" are actually passes that had been > > marked "xfail" > > and "TRUE" "desired" in the testsuite. The items in question are in > > testsuite > > files gcc.dg/analyzer/operations.c and params.c. In particular > > operations.c > > is only partially fixed because, as I have described, I thus far have > > only added > > cases for PLUS and MINUS. As you can see in that test file, you have > > some tests > > involving multiplication and division. My question is, before > > bothering to > > submit would you like me to just add handlers for these? I guess it > > will save us > > a patch cycle. > > Can you post what you have so far? > > It's easier for me to understand a patch by looking at the patch, > rather than a description of a patch, if that makes sense. > > Is the issue that doing a full bootstrap&test cycle is too slow? If so > I'm fine with you posting preliminary patches for discussion if you're > upfront about the ones that haven't been through a full bootstrap&test > run. Also, would it help if you had access to the GCC compiler farm? > There are some very fast machines there. > > (that said, I'm meant to be taking a day off today so I ought to sign > off for now) > > Dave > > > Also, your comment regarding overflows is well taken, but I think we > > should fix > > the overall problem first, then worry about the overflow corner case. > > Brian