On 10/19/20 6:03 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [PATCH] Refactor range handling of builtins in vr_values and
ranger.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:32:05 +0200
From: Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com>
To: GCC patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jakub Jelinek
<ja...@redhat.com>
CC: Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com>, Aldy Hernandez
<al...@redhat.com>
Hi Jakub.
As the last known expert in this area, would you review this, please? :)
This sets things up so we can share range handling of builtins between
vr_values and ranger. It is meant to refactor the code so that we can
verify that both implementations yield the same results.
First, we abstract out gimple_ranger::range_of_builtin_call into an
externally
visible counterpart that can be called from vr_values. It will take a
range_query since both ranger and vr_values inherit from this base class.
Then we abstract out all the builtin handling in vr_values into a
separate
method that is easier to compare against.
Finally, we call the ranger version from vr_values and compare it with
the
vr_values version. Since this proves both versions return the same,
we can remove vr_values::extract_range_builtin in a follow-up patch.
The vr_values::range_of_expr change brings the vr_values version up to
par
with the ranger version. It should've handled non-SSA's. This was
a small oversight that went unnoticed because the vr_value version isn't
stressed nearly as much as the ranger version. The change is needed
because
the ranger code handling builtins calls, may call it for integer
arguments
in range_of_builtin_ubsan_call.
There should be no change in functionality.
Tested on x86_64, with aarch64 tests still going.
OK provided aarch64 tests finish this century?
IIRC you basically duplicated the builtin code from vr-values and
adapted it, we just never got back to consolidating them. Until
range_query i guess that would have been more difficult.
I think you should also post the followup patch which removes the old
builtin range extraction. There shouldn't be much churn so it's not a
waste of time? It would just be useful to see the other half.
 This is OK,and the plan is to leave the verification code in place for
a week or two to allow OS builds and various other things to bounce off
it just as a double check?
Andrew
