PING * 2
On 8/11/20 1:56 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
-- Forwarded message -
From: *Aldy Hernandez* mailto:al...@redhat.com>>
Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 16:54
Subject: [PATCH] Rewrite get_size_range for irange API.
To: mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>>
Cc: mailto:mse..
-- Forwarded message -
From: Aldy Hernandez
Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 16:54
Subject: [PATCH] Rewrite get_size_range for irange API.
To:
Cc: , Aldy Hernandez
[Martin, does this sound reasonable to you?]
The following patch converts get_size_range to the irange API, thus
removing
On 8/10/20 2:08 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 8/10/20 2:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/10/20 11:50 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 8/10/20 12:35 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 8/10/20 5:47 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
int_range is the type which allows for up to X subranges.
calcula
On 8/10/20 2:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/10/20 11:50 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 8/10/20 12:35 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 8/10/20 5:47 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
int_range is the type which allows for up to X subranges.
calculations will be merged to fit within X subran
On 8/10/20 2:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/10/20 11:50 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 8/10/20 12:35 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 8/10/20 5:47 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/6/20 9:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/6/20 8:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ // Remo
On 8/10/20 11:50 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 8/10/20 12:35 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 8/10/20 5:47 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/6/20 9:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/6/20 8:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ // Remove the unknown parts of a multi-range.
+
Yes, the goal is that anything that may take multi ranges be rewritten to
use an irange * and use the API exclusively. Then when multi ranges are
passed down eventually, things will work transparently.
Aldy
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 19:50 Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 8/10/20 12:35 PM, Martin Sebor v
On 8/10/20 12:35 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 8/10/20 5:47 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/6/20 9:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/6/20 8:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ // Remove the unknown parts of a multi-range.
+ // This will transform [5,10][20,MAX] into
On 8/10/20 5:47 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 8/6/20 9:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/6/20 8:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ // Remove the unknown parts of a multi-range.
+ // This will transform [5,10][20,MAX] into [5,10].
Is this comment correct? Wouldn't this result i
On 8/6/20 9:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/6/20 8:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ // Remove the unknown parts of a multi-range.
+ // This will transform [5,10][20,MAX] into [5,10].
Is this comment correct? Wouldn't this result in returning smaller
sizes than the actual
On 8/6/20 8:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
[Martin, does this sound reasonable to you?]
It mostly makes sense to me except one part:
The following patch converts get_size_range to the irange API, thus
removing the use of VR_ANTI_RANGE.
This was a bit tricky because of the gymn
[Martin, does this sound reasonable to you?]
The following patch converts get_size_range to the irange API, thus
removing the use of VR_ANTI_RANGE.
This was a bit tricky because of the gymnastics we do in get_size_range
to ignore negatives and all that. I didn't convert the function for
multi-ra
12 matches
Mail list logo
