This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: cleanups and unification of value_range dumping code
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:43 PM Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/13/18 3:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:50 AM Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have rebased my value_range dumping patch after your value_range_base
> >> changes.
> >>
> >> I know you are not a fan of the gimple-pretty-print.c chunk, but I still
> >> think having one set of dumping code is preferable to catering to
> >> possible GC corruption while debugging. If you're strongly opposed (as,
> >> I'm putting my foot down), I can remove it as well as the relevant
> >> pretty_printer stuff.
> >
> > I'd say we do not want to change the gimple-pretty-print.c stuff also because
> > we'll miss the leading #. I'd rather see a simple wide-int-range class
> > wrapping the interesting bits up. I guess I'll come up with one then ;)
>
> Ok. Removed.
>
> >
> >> The patch looks bigger than it is because I moved all the dump routines
> >> into one place.
> >>
> >> OK?
> >>
> >> p.s. After your changes, perhaps get_range_info(const_tree, value_range
> >> &) should take a value_range_base instead?
> >
> > Yes, I missed that and am now testing this change.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > Btw, the patch needs updating again (sorry). If you leave out the
> > gimple-pretty-print.c stuff there's no requirement to use the pretty-printer
> > API, right?
>
> No need to apologize for contributing code :). Thanks. And yes,
> there's no need for the pretty-printer bits.
>
> I've also removed the value_range*::dump() versions with no arguments,
> as now we have an overloaded debug() for use from the debugger.
>
> Testing attached patch.
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Aldy