[PATCH 03/10] tree-object-size: Use tree instead of HOST_WIDE_INT

Jakub Jelinek jakub@redhat.com
Tue Nov 23 11:58:19 GMT 2021


On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:32:22PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:01:08PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > On 11/22/21 17:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > > So I've got patch 10/10, which handles dynamic (and consequently
> > > negative) offsets.  It basically computes a "whole size", which then
> > > gives the extent to which a negative offset is valid, making the
> > > estimates a bit more precise.  I didn't do it for static object sizes
> > > because I didn't have time then, but I could add a patch 11/10 if the
> > > idea sounds OK to you.
> > 
> > ... or alternatively, I could bring the whole size idea into this tree
> > conversion patch so that it handles all kinds of offsets.  That might even
> > eliminate patch 10/10.  What would you prefer?
> 
> Into this patch.

BTW, seems the current behavior is to punt on those "negative" values,
we trigger
  if (offset >= offset_limit)
case for it and return unknown.

	Jakub



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list