Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:24:30PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the
>> > individual port and front end maintainers can review their parts
>> > without have to go through the entire patch. This patch covers the
>> > gimple code.
>>
>> @@ -1754,7 +1754,7 @@ dump_ssaname_info (pretty_printer *buffer, tree
>> node, int spc)
>> if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (node))
>> && SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO (node))
>> {
>> - double_int min, max, nonzero_bits;
>> + widest_int min, max, nonzero_bits;
>> value_range_type range_type = get_range_info (node, &min, &max);
>>
>> if (range_type == VR_VARYING)
>>
>> this makes me suspect you are changing SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO
>> to embed two max wide_ints. That's a no-no.
>
> Well, the range_info_def struct right now contains 3 double_ints, which is
> unnecessary overhead for the most of the cases where the SSA_NAME's type
> has just at most HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT bits and thus we could fit all 3 of
> them into 3 HOST_WIDE_INTs rather than 3 double_ints. So supposedly struct
> range_info_def could be a template on the type's precision rounded up to HWI
> bits, or say have 3 alternatives there, use
> FIXED_WIDE_INT (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) for the smallest types,
> FIXED_WIDE_INT (2 * HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) aka double_int for the larger
> but still common ones, and widest_int for the rest, then the API to set/get
> it could use widest_int everywhere, and just what storage we'd use would
> depend on the precision of the type.
Would it make sense to just use trees for the min and max?
It looks from a quick grep like set_range_info is called with trees or
range_info_def fields for all cases except anti-ranges. Maybe for those
we could steal a bit from somewhere in the SSA_NAME structure? From the
comments it looks like static_flag might be free.
Of course, that means polluting a different cache line when switching to
and from anti ranges, but I'd hope that's still cheaper than adding when
writing anti-ranges and subtracting when reading.
Thanks,
Richard
