On 4/18/23 12:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 12:50:58PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:--- a/gcc/value-range.cc +++ b/gcc/value-range.cc @@ -232,6 +232,58 @@ vrange::dump (FILE *file) const pp_flush (&buffer); }+namespace inchash+{ + +void +add_vrange (const vrange &v, inchash::hash &hstate, + unsigned int) +{ + if (v.undefined_p ()) + { + hstate.add_int (VR_UNDEFINED); + return; + } + // Types are ignored throughout to inhibit two ranges being equal + // but having different hash values. This can happen when two + // ranges are equal and their types are different (but + // types_compatible_p is true). + if (is_a <irange> (v)) + { + const irange &r = as_a <irange> (v); + if (r.varying_p ()) + hstate.add_int (VR_VARYING); + else + hstate.add_int (VR_RANGE);Shouldn't this also hstate.add_int (r.num_pairs ()); ? Or is that unnecessary because different number of add_wide_int calls will likely result in different hashes then?
That was my thinking, and we could save one write. I can add the num_pairs() if you prefer. I don't have a strong opinion. Aldy
