On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:43 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/13/18 3:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:50 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> I have rebased my value_range dumping patch after your value_range_base > >> changes. > >> > >> I know you are not a fan of the gimple-pretty-print.c chunk, but I still > >> think having one set of dumping code is preferable to catering to > >> possible GC corruption while debugging. If you're strongly opposed (as, > >> I'm putting my foot down), I can remove it as well as the relevant > >> pretty_printer stuff. > > > > I'd say we do not want to change the gimple-pretty-print.c stuff also > > because > > we'll miss the leading #. I'd rather see a simple wide-int-range class > > wrapping the interesting bits up. I guess I'll come up with one then ;) > > Ok. Removed. > > > > >> The patch looks bigger than it is because I moved all the dump routines > >> into one place. > >> > >> OK? > >> > >> p.s. After your changes, perhaps get_range_info(const_tree, value_range > >> &) should take a value_range_base instead? > > > > Yes, I missed that and am now testing this change. > > Thanks. > > > > > Btw, the patch needs updating again (sorry). If you leave out the > > gimple-pretty-print.c stuff there's no requirement to use the pretty-printer > > API, right? > > No need to apologize for contributing code :). Thanks. And yes, > there's no need for the pretty-printer bits. > > I've also removed the value_range*::dump() versions with no arguments, > as now we have an overloaded debug() for use from the debugger. > > Testing attached patch.
OK. Thanks, Richard. > Aldy
