On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:30:47PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The patch looks bigger than it actually is because:
>
> 1) It modifies the return type of the function to bool rather than
> unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT representing the object size (this was
> necessary to avoid having its callers misinterpret zero as
> unknown when it means zero bytes).
Can you explain why do you need this? I don't understand why do you need to
differentiate between unknown and maximum (or minimum for modes 2 and 3 that
nobody actually uses in real-world), the builtin after all returns the same
value for both. If you want to know if the compiler knows the size
precisely, you can request both mode 0 (or 1) and 2 (or 3) and compare, if
the values are the same, it is the exact size, if there is a range, then you
have minimum and maximum (and, if minimum is 0, but maximum non-zero, you
really don't know minimum, if maximum is -1, then you really don't know the
maximum (no object should be better that big). For the return value, I
don't see how you could reliably differentiate between the two even if it
made for whatever strange reason sense - for SSA_NAMEs etc. you have just
recorded the sizes, not also a flag whether it is unknown or known.
> 2) As a result of a small change to the conditional that controls
> the main algorithm of the compute_builtin_object_size function
> it changes the depth of its indentation (without actually
> changing any of the code there).
If you've done lots of redindentation, then additionally diff -upb would be
appreciated.
Jakub
