On 11/8/18 9:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:50 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/8/18 9:43 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:27 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/8/18 9:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:09 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
All this nonsense:
- rtype = get_range_info (t, &min, &max);
- if (rtype == VR_RANGE)
- {
- if (wi::lt_p (max, w, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t))))
- return true;
- if (wi::lt_p (w, min, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t))))
- return true;
- }
- else if (rtype == VR_ANTI_RANGE
- && wi::le_p (min, w, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t)))
- && wi::le_p (w, max, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t))))
Replaced by an API like Kutulu intended.
+ get_range_info (t, vr);
+ if (!vr.may_contain_p (wide_int_to_tree (TREE_TYPE (t), w)))
Ain't it grand?
Well. The not-so-grand thing is that you possibly ggc-allocate
three INTEGER_CST nodes here.
Hmmm... I'd really prefer to use a simple API call, instead of having to
twiddle with the extremes manually. Ideally no one should be looking
inside of a value_range.
Do recommend another way of implementing may_contain_p ?
I think many places dealing with get_range_info () should instead
work on the (to be created...) 1:1 copy of value_range ontop of
wide-int-range instead.
I'd prefer to not expose that we're going to use wide_int or any other
implementation to the users of get_range_info().
But it's exposed at the moment. And I don't see it change. And you
should not allocate memory for no good reason.
So - can you add a wide_int_range class to wide-int-range.h
that implements the same (but with wide-ints rather than trees
obviously) API as value-range?
Hmmm, I don't have time for this release cycle. Perhaps something to be
entertained for GCC+1?
Again, I prefer my patch as is. I cleans up the code, and keeps us from
introducing problematic bugs. Anything dealing with anti ranges is
fraught with peril, as my cleanups to tree-vrp revealed.
If using these INTEGER_CST's causes any measurable performance
difference, I'd be happy to look into it.
Just leave the code unchanged then in this release?
Ok.
