On 11/8/18 9:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:52 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
I believe I've seen this idiom more than once. I know for sure I've
used it in our ssa-range branch :). I'll hunt for the other uses and
adjust accordingly.
domain_p?! Isn't that the same as varying_p()? Also
Sigh, yes. If we kept normalized value_ranges around where [MIN,MAX]
degraded into VR_VARYING, then yes. But alas, we have two ways of
representing the entire domain. Don't look at me. That crap was
already there :).
Another approach would be to call ::set_and_canonicalize() before
checking varying_p() and teach the canonicalize function that [MIN, MAX]
is VR_VARYING. How does that sound?
Aldy
+ if (m_kind == VR_RANGE)
+ {
+ tree type = TREE_TYPE (type ());
+ value_range vr (VR_RANGE, TYPE_MIN_VALUE (type), TYPE_MAX_VALUE (type));
TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE is NULL for pointers
+ return equal_p (vr, /*ignore_equivs=*/true);
But equivs essentially are making the range smaller! The range
is the intersection of itself with all equiv ranges!
Richard.
+ }
OK?
