On May 31, 2018 12:42:39 AM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 05/30/2018 03:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:58 PM Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> >>> On 05/28/2018 03:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:15 PM Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> >wrote: >>>> >>>>> Attached is revision 3 of the patch incorporating your >>>>> determine_value_range function with the requested changes. >>>> >>>> I'm somewhat torn about removing the "basic" interface on SSA names >>>> so can you please not change get_range_info for now and instead >>>> use determine_value_range in get_size_range for now? >> >>> I can do that. Can you explain why you're having second thoughts >>> about going this route? >> >> I've seen you recurse between both APIs, thus they call each other. >> That's ugly which is why I prefer to keep one of them a simple >accessor >> to the range-info associated with an SSA name. >> >> A future enhancement for the new API would be to walk def stmts >> but then the API should stop at SSA names that do have range-info >> associated and record range-info it computed into SSA names it >> walked so the IL itself serves as a cache. That requires a way >> to see whether an SSA name has range-info rather than having >> get_range_info recurse into the walking machinery again. >There's a lot of similarities between what you're suggesting here and >the ranger API that Andrew has been working on.
Maybe - at least it integrates easily with existing infrastructure and doesn't require yet another set of operations on ranges. I'll yet have to review the ranger stuff. Richard. > >Jeff
