On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:30 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/8/18 10:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:05 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11/8/18 9:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:40 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 11/8/18 9:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:52 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I believe I've seen this idiom more than once. I know for sure I've > >>>>>> used it in our ssa-range branch :). I'll hunt for the other uses and > >>>>>> adjust accordingly. > >>>>> > >>>>> domain_p?! Isn't that the same as varying_p()? Also > >>>> > >>>> Sigh, yes. If we kept normalized value_ranges around where [MIN,MAX] > >>>> degraded into VR_VARYING, then yes. But alas, we have two ways of > >>>> representing the entire domain. Don't look at me. That crap was > >>>> already there :). > >>>> > >>>> Another approach would be to call ::set_and_canonicalize() before > >>>> checking varying_p() and teach the canonicalize function that [MIN, MAX] > >>>> is VR_VARYING. How does that sound? > >>> > >>> But that's still broken for the case where it has equivalences. I fear > >>> that > >>> if you look at users we'll end up with three or more different > >>> varying_p/domain_p > >>> things all being subtly different... > >> > >> Bah, I give up. I don't have time to look into possible subtleties wrt > >> equivalences right now. I'll drop this patch. > >> > >>> > >>> As said in the other thread we should see to separate equivs out > >>> of the way. > >> > >> And as I meant to say in the other thread, I'll buy you many beers if > >> you can do this for this release :). > > > > Well, yall made a mess out of the nicely contained VRP, and topped > > it with C++. > > > > Now it's ... a mess. > > You wish! VRP has been a mess for quite a long time. > > > > > And for whatever reason all the C++-ification and refactoring had to happen > > for GCC 9 :/ > > You're gonna absolutely love what we have in store for GCC 10 ;-).
I believe it when I see it. Oh wait - that was sarcastic! Richard. > Aldy
