This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [ping][PATCH][1 of 2] Add value range info to SSA_NAME for zero sign extension elimination in RTL
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Kugan <kugan dot vivekanandarajah at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:02:30 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [ping][PATCH][1 of 2] Add value range info to SSA_NAME for zero sign extension elimination in RTL
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <51BE66E8 dot 3010401 at linaro dot org> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1306171045180 dot 22313 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <51D41852 dot 9050508 at linaro dot org> <CAFiYyc10HBW1PX+3jAQ=yJKfTjkP-9F2DnujNhU_ZBE0xG8_uQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5225D2E4 dot 303 at linaro dot org> <52297A5B dot 1010309 at suse dot de> <522D03B9 dot 6060201 at linaro dot org> <CAFiYyc0xYQQ9Cpsw5wVgy3zsxNppuJzyUyAg8Y4u90nKad+k8w at mail dot gmail dot com> <522E99DD dot 2080505 at linaro dot org> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309101432560 dot 3150 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <20130910134006 dot GZ1817 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <52300715 dot 4080307 at linaro dot org>
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
> Thanks Jakub for the review.
>
> On 10/09/13 23:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:17:50PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > unsigned short s;
> > > > s.1_3 = (short unsigned int) l.0_2;
> > > > l.0_2: VARYING
> > > > s.1_3: [0, +INF]
> > >
> > > Note that [0, +INF] is the same as VARYING and [-INF, +INF] and VARYING
> > > for
> > > l.0_2 is the same as [-INF, +INF].
> >
> > Yeah, I don't see much value in differentiating between VR_VARYING and
> > VR_RANGE [TYPE_MIN_VALUE, TYPE_MAX_VALUE] (perhaps a question is what to do
> > for types with precisions different from TYPE_MODE's bitsize, if we should
> > store for VARYING/UNDEFINED a range of all possible values in the mode).
> > Unsigned type will be always >= 0, even if it is VARYING or UNDEFINED.
> > What is the valid bit good for? Is it meant just for integrals with >
> > 2*HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT precision, which we can't represent in double_int?
> > I'd say we just don't want to keep track on the value ranges for those.
>
> Ok, I will remove the valid.
>
> > And, do we need to distinguish between VR_RANGE and VR_ANTI_RANGE?
> > I mean, can't we always store the range in VR_RANGE format? Instead of
> > -[3,7] we'd store [8,2] and define that if the min double_int is bigger than
> > max double_int, then it is [min,+infinity] merged with [-infinity,max] range
> > (i.e. -[max+1,min-1])?
> >
>
> Ok, I will change this too.
Make sure to add a predicate that can tell whether its an anti-range
then.
Richard.