On 7/14/23 09:37, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, as I haven't been
following the PR, but adding all these helper functions to the ranger header
file seems wrong, especially since there's only one use of them. I see you're
tweaking the irange API, adding helper functions to range-op (which is only
for code dealing with implementing range operators for tree codes), etc etc.
If you need these helper functions, I suggest you put them closer to their
uses (i.e. wherever the match.pd support machinery goes).
Note I suggested the opposite beacuse I thought these kind of helpers
are closer to value-range support than to match.pd.
probably vr-values.{cc.h} and the simply_using_ranges paradigm would be
the most sensible place to put these kinds of auxiliary routines?
But I take away from your answer that there's nothing close in the
value-range machinery that answers the question whether A op B may
overflow?
we dont track it in ranges themselves. During calculation of a range
we obviously know, but propagating that generally when we rarely care
doesn't seem worthwhile. The very first generation of irange 6 years
ago had an overflow_p() flag, but it was removed as not being worth
keeping. easier to simply ask the question when it matters
As the routines show, it pretty easy to figure out when the need arises
so I think that should suffice. At least for now,
Should we decide we would like it in general, it wouldnt be hard to add
to irange. wi_fold() cuurently returns null, it could easily return a
bool indicating if an overflow happened, and wi_fold_in_parts and
fold_range would simply OR the results all together of the compoent
wi_fold() calls. It would require updating/audfiting a number of
range-op entries and adding an overflowed_p() query to irange.
Andrew
