This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: wide-int, gimple

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek <> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:52:47PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> But my point is that at the moment we always have trees for the ranges
>> we want to record, so it seems simplest just to store those in the
>> structure.  I was thinking of something like the attached (only just
>> started testing, no changelog yet).
> You have the tree at VRP time, that doesn't necessarily mean the tree is
> directly in the IL somewhere (with the right type).  So, if you have very
> large function, you can have tons of constants there that aren't cached
> nor anywhere in the IL directly, so ggc_collect could normally throw them
> away, but if they are referenced from the SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO, they can't
> be.

Btw, for the cases where I objected to using widest_int in structs that
reside on the heap (or in GC memory) you can just keep the old code
using double_int, no?  Thus, leave the problem that 1) this is a host
dependence, 2) it blocks double-int from being removed, for fix/cleanup
after the merge?

That said, I'd prefer to keep range_info_def as-is (using double_int)
for the wide-int merge.

Likewise for the nb_iteration stuff in cfgloop.h.


>         Jakub

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]