Hi, hmm, looks we both run into same issue and developed different fixes. > > Good point. The change above was added based on 4.4.3 where the sum > computation has no capping like above. Yes, with the current capping, > the negative value won't result. However, it is still good to guard > the scale independent of the implementation of ipcp_compute_node_scale > -- it may change and break silently (the comment of the function says > the implementation is wrong...)
Well, if we want to add check in anticipation that we will introduce bug few lines up, I think we could just add gcc_assert (scale < BASE); with an comment explaining that ipcp_compute_node_scale must give results in range even when profile is not flow consistent. Since we need to propagate the scales across callgraph (at least for the correct implementation of the function), masking bug in ipcp_compute_node_scale would make us to propagate the nonsenses further and silently producing unnecesarily aplified insanity. I would pre-approve patch reverting the current change and adding the assert with comment. Honza > > Thanks, > > David > > > > > > Honza > >
