On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/14/2017 01:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> I spoke with Andrew a bit today, he's consistently seeing cases where the
>>> union of 3 ranges is necessary to resolve the kinds of queries we're
>>> interested in. He's made a design decision not to use anti-ranges in his
>>> work, so y'all are in sync on that long term.
>> Ok. I'd also not hard-code the number of union ranges but make the code
>> agnostic. Still the actual implementation might take a #define / template
>> for an upper bound.
> Andrew was in-sync on not hard-coding the number of ranges either --
> essentially he's considering the possibility that consumers might want
> different levels of detail and thus a different number of recorded union
> I'm not 100% sure that level of engineering is needed, but a design which
> accounts for that inherently avoids hard-coding the upper bound.
Yeah. And then there's (independently) SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO
which needs a memory-compact representation which means it might
make sense to retain anti-ranges for that and use at most one range/anti-range.