On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 04:55:42PM GMT, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > On Fri, 2024-07-12 at 16:43 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: > > [...] > > > This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare > > insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is > > in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same > > as 32-bit smin32/smax32. > > [...] > > Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> Other than the already mentioned typo LGTM, Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx> > [...] > > > + * Now, suppose that register range is in fact tighter: > > + * [0xffff_ffff_8000_0000, 0x0000_0000_ffff_ffff] (R) > > + * Also suppose that it's 32-bit range is positive, > > + * meaning that lower 32-bits of the full 64-bit register > > + * are in the range: > > + * [0x0000_0000, 0x7fff_ffff] (W) > > + * > > + * It this happens, then any value in a range: > ^^ > Sorry, one more typo, should be "If". > Maybe could be changed when the patch would be applied. > > [...]
