On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:50 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I have rebased my value_range dumping patch after your value_range_base > changes. > > I know you are not a fan of the gimple-pretty-print.c chunk, but I still > think having one set of dumping code is preferable to catering to > possible GC corruption while debugging. If you're strongly opposed (as, > I'm putting my foot down), I can remove it as well as the relevant > pretty_printer stuff.
I'd say we do not want to change the gimple-pretty-print.c stuff also because we'll miss the leading #. I'd rather see a simple wide-int-range class wrapping the interesting bits up. I guess I'll come up with one then ;) > The patch looks bigger than it is because I moved all the dump routines > into one place. > > OK? > > p.s. After your changes, perhaps get_range_info(const_tree, value_range > &) should take a value_range_base instead? Yes, I missed that and am now testing this change. Btw, the patch needs updating again (sorry). If you leave out the gimple-pretty-print.c stuff there's no requirement to use the pretty-printer API, right? Richard.
