On 11/23/21 17:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:32:22PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:01:08PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 11/22/21 17:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
So I've got patch 10/10, which handles dynamic (and consequently
negative) offsets. It basically computes a "whole size", which then
gives the extent to which a negative offset is valid, making the
estimates a bit more precise. I didn't do it for static object sizes
because I didn't have time then, but I could add a patch 11/10 if the
idea sounds OK to you.
... or alternatively, I could bring the whole size idea into this tree
conversion patch so that it handles all kinds of offsets. That might even
eliminate patch 10/10. What would you prefer?
Into this patch.
BTW, seems the current behavior is to punt on those "negative" values,
we trigger
if (offset >= offset_limit)
case for it and return unknown.
The current behaviour is actually inconsistent; for SSA names it punts
for sizes greater than offset limit and for addr_expr it ends up with
larger sizes.
Siddhesh
