On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:31 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/8/18 9:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:17 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This one's rather obvious and does not depend on any get_range_info API
> >> change.
> >>
> >> OK for trunk?
> >
> > Hmm, no - that's broken. IIRC m_equiv are shared bitmaps if you
> > do tem = *old_vr so you modify it in place with equiv_clear().
>
> Good point.
>
> >
> > Thus, operator= should be really deleted or mapped to value_range::set()
> > in which case tem = *old_vr would do useless bitmap allocation and
> > copying that you then clear.
>
> Actually, I was thinking that perhaps the assignment and equality
> operators should disregard the equivalence bitmap. In this case, copy
> everything EXCEPT the bitmap and set the resulting equivalence bitmap to
> NULL.
I think that's equally confusing.
> It's also annoying to use ::ignore_equivs_equal_p(). Since that seems
> to be the predominant way of comparing ranges, perhaps it should be the
> default.
I think a good approach would be to isolate m_equiv more because it is
really an implementation detail of the propagator. Thus, make
class value_range_with_equiv : public value_range
{
... all the equiv stuff..
}
make the lattice of type value_range_with_equiv and see what tickles
down.
value_range_with_equiv wouldn't implement copy and assignment
(too expensive) and value_range can do with the trivial implementation.
And most consumers/workers can just work on the equiv-less variants.
Richard.
> Aldy
