On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:16:44AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:59:48AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> I don't like the fact that *dynamic_check is set to max (which is 0
> >> with your testcase) when recursion avoidance code already set it to
> >> "something reasonable", together with loop_1_byte alg. What do you
> >> think about attached (lightly tested) patch?
> >
> > But that can still set *dynamic_check to 0 if the recursive call has
> > not set *dynamic_check.
> > So, perhaps we want *dynamic_check = max ? max : 128;
> > ?
>
> I believe that recursive call set *dynamic_check to zero for a reason.
> The sent patch deals with recursion breaking issues only, leaving all
> other functionality as it was before. So, your issue is IMO orthogonal
> to the PR70062 and should be fixed (if at all) in a separate patch.
The recursive call should never set *dynamic_check to 0, only to
-1 or 128 (the last one newly, since my fix).
And, my issue is IMO not orghogonal to that, either *dynamic_check == 0
is ok, or it is not.
Perhaps better would be to add an extra argument to decide_alg, false
for toplevel invocation, true for recursive invocation, and if recursive
call, just never try to recurse again (thus we could revert the previous
change) and don't set *dynamic_check to anything in that case during the
recursion.
And then at the caller side decide what we want for max == -1 and what
for max == 0 with *dynamic_check.
Jakub
