On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED
with
the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the new
implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do inline.
These new function names are extremely confusing given that we already
have tree_int_cst_lt which does the right thing based on the signedness
of the INTEGER_CST trees.
The whole point of the macros was to be inlined and you break that. That is,
for example
if (unsignedp && unsignedp0)
{
- min_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, minval);
- max_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, maxval);
- min_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (minval, primop1);
- max_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (maxval, primop1);
+ min_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, minval);
+ max_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, maxval);
+ min_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (minval, primop1);
+ max_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (maxval, primop1);
}
else
{
- min_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, minval);
- max_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, maxval);
- min_lt = INT_CST_LT (minval, primop1);
- max_lt = INT_CST_LT (maxval, primop1);
+ min_gt = tree_int_cst_lts_p (primop1, minval);
...
could have just been
min_gt = tree_int_cst_lt (primop1, minval);
....
without any sign check.
So if you think you need to kill the inlined variants please use the existing
tree_int_cst_lt instead.
no, they could not have. tree_int_cst_lt uses the signedness of the
type to determine how to do the comparison. These two functions, as
the macros they replace, force the comparison to be done independent of
the signedness of the type.
I do not know why we need to do this. I am just applying a plug
compatible replacement here. I did not write this code, but I do not
think that i can just do as you say here.
Kenny
Thanks,
Richard.
This is a small patch that has no prerequisites.
Tested on x86-64.
kenny
