On 3/13/23 08:50, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 3/10/23 11:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:53:37AM +0000, Richard Biener wrote:
Meh - I wonder if we can avoid all this by making float_widen_lhs_range
friend of frange and simply access m_min/m_max directly and use the
copy-CTOR to copy bounds and nan state ... after all verify_range
will likely fail after you restore flag_finite_math_only ...
I'll defer such changes to Aldy.
As for verification, I think verify_range will not fail on it, it mainly
checks whether it is normalized (e.g. if minimum is frange_val_min and
maximum is frange_val_max and NaNs are possible with both signs (if NaNs
are supported) then it is VR_VARYING etc.). It doesn't check if the actual
VR_RANGE bounds are smaller or larger than the VR_VARYING bounds, there is
just equality check.
Of course, behavior of wider than varying ranges is still unexpected in
many ways, say the union_ of such a range and VR_VARYING will ICE etc.
Now, I guess another possibility for the reverse ops over these wider ranges
would be avoid calling fold_range in the reverse ops, but call rv_fold
directly or have fold_range variant which would instead of the op1, op2
argument have 2 triplets, op1, op1lb, op1ub, op2, op2lb, op2ub, and it
would use those const REAL_VALUE_TYPE &op??b in preference to
op?.{lower,upper}_bound () or perhaps normal fold_range be implemented
in terms of this extended fold_range. Then we wouldn't need to bother with
these non-standard franges...
But OK for the moment.
Thanks, committed.
I'm not a big fan of constructing ranges that break all our internal
consistency checks. I'd also prefer to add another constructor (or add a flag
to the current constructor) instead of making range-op-float routines friends.
We also have bits in the vrange (or frange) that we could use for other
semantics, especially since frange_storage can be streamlined when stored in
GC/etc.
I'm on PTO this week. Could we revisit this next week? And if worse comes to
worse, leave it as is, and fix it properly next release?
Yes, sure - I just noticed that we're forced to use high-level API for
something that's quite low-level and should be internal (a range
"breaking" internal consistency checks).
Yeah, let's fix the API. No sense hacking around things if what we need
is to tweak the design.
I don't like hacking around things. It always comes back to bite me ;-).
Aldy
