Re: [patch v3]middle-end: Teach ranger about POLY_INT_CST ranges for VRP.

Tamar Christina <[email protected]> writes:
>> > +
>> > +	  if (!wi::le_p (bounds[0], bounds[1], sign))
>> > +	    {
>> > +	      r.set_varying (type);
>> > +	      return true;
>> > +	    }
>> 
>> Is this possible after the above?  I would hope that we could either drop
>> this or turn it into an assert.  Either way is ok with me.
>
> You're right, this is mostly a defensive check for a broken target bounds.
> but an assert is 100% more appropriate.
>
>> 
>> OK with those changes, thanks.  I think the patch has been around long
>> enough that more active folks would have commented by now if they wanted
>> to.
>> But please say if you think the above le_p is still needed.
>
> No I think it can be an assert.  OK with you to make it that, apply your
> patch and
> push or do you want to see the final version?

OK like that from my POV, no need for another round.  Thanks for
checking though.

Richard