On 05/08/2017 09:54 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
So I'm not sure if changing VRP with your patches is a good thing when
you
could have used the new API in the first place ...
I don't see that the changes to date around 78496 change things
significantly in regards to the immediate plans to remove ASSERT_EXPR.
The work around 78496 raises the bar in terms of what information we
need to be able to extract, but that IMHO, is a fine thing to do ;-)
As expected, it's pretty easy to change to the newer way of doing
things. ie, extracting from the GIMPLE_COND rather than the
ASSERT_EXPR. It really isn't a big deal.
However, the existence of register_edge_assert_for does change how I'm
looking at the next issue for 78496 as well as how to tackle a host of
related issues. It may end up being the case that we stop 78496 work
after patch #2, work on ASSERT_EXPR removal, then re-eval 78496.
And as expected the unwindable VRs do help significantly in the 3rd hunk
of the work for 78496. Probably the biggest issue here is how to
compose the bits to avoid code duplication between EVRP and the VRP jump
threading.
Jeff
