On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 2:40 PM Aldy Hernandez <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:53:20PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:30 PM Aldy Hernandez <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Are there not in-BB side-effects to ranges that might or might not be > > reflected? > > > > I'm not sure it's sensible to use path ranger as current query. > > Side effects are block granular, in both rangers AFAIK, so a mid fold > query through the path ranger either gets the global range or a cached > value from everything seen so far in the path. So I think we should > be OK. > > However, if we're using the path ranger to ask things from the path, > but expecting a root ranger response, that's bound to fail. To be > honest, we haven't stressed the path ranger outside of the backwards > threader much (maybe loop-ch and loop unswitching??). So the > conservative option may be not to ask the path ranger itself, or bail > if the cache hasn't been set up?
I think it's weird to end up with path ranger as query and we should have fallen back to a "below" active ranger or global ranges. I'd have expected path ranger queries to explicitly go to it, not via the get_range_query () active one. Or is the gimple_ranger instantiated by the back threader "tainted" somehow, even when not using a path_range_query constructed from it? Richard. > > I'm fine either way. > > Aldy
