On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 AM, kugan <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> Why separate out early VRP from tree-vrp? Just a little curious. > > > It is based on the discussion in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00069.html. > In summary, conclusion (based on my understanding) was to implement a > simplified VRP algorithm that doesn't require ASSERT_EXPR insertion.
But I don't see why you are moving it from tree-vrp.c . That was my question, you pointing to that discussion does not say to split it into a new file and expose these interfaces. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > >> Also it seems like if you are going to do that, putting the following >> functions in a class would be better: >> +extern void vrp_initialize (void); >> +extern void vrp_finalize (bool update, bool warn_array_bounds_p); >> +extern void vrp_intersect_ranges (value_range *vr0, value_range *vr1); >> +extern void vrp_meet (value_range *vr0, value_range *vr1); >> +extern enum ssa_prop_result vrp_visit_stmt (gimple *stmt, >> + edge *taken_edge_p, >> + tree *output_p); >> +extern enum ssa_prop_result vrp_visit_phi_node (gphi *phi); >> +extern bool stmt_interesting_for_vrp (gimple *stmt); >> + >> +extern void extract_range_from_assert (value_range *vr_p, tree expr); >> +extern bool update_value_range (const_tree var, value_range *vr); >> +extern value_range *get_value_range (const_tree var); >> +extern void set_value_range (value_range *vr, enum value_range_type t, >> + tree min, tree max, bitmap equiv); >> +extern void change_value_range (const_tree var, value_range *new_vr); >> + >> +extern void dump_value_range (FILE *, value_range *); >> >> That is vrp_initialize becomes the constructor and vrp_finalize >> becomes the deconstructor. >> With both jump_thread and warn_array_bounds_p being variables you set >> while running your pass. > > > I will give this a try. > > Thanks, > Kugan
