On 7/31/19 4:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:54 PM Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote:
Everything in this compiler is historical. We did everything we could to
save memory back in the old days, I know, I was there when we did this.
Combining the lattice and the range made sense in that context. In
fact, you could get rid of the lattice structure entirely with the way
we represent irange... we have varying and undefined values query-able
from the range without anything special. That seems even more efficient
to me, and that's the way I'd implement it today... no artificial
lattice overlay needed, just the range.
Lattices will eventually go away. I personally don't see any point in us
spinning our wheels re-implementing them when they are slated to be
removed. Until then, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way it
works right now. Adding the min and max to the varying node has no
impact on how lattices work, it just allows value_range to interact with
new range code better..
This change is trivial. it actually fixes a few warts. It lets us move
on with other more significant things.
I've been trying to play nice and get agreement, but after a week and a
half it seems like that isn't going to happen. I welcome any further
comments on the patch, but otherwise I will approve the patch.
I will note this is the first time in a very long time that I have had
to exercise my maintainer authority as one of the original architects of
tree-ssa. I have been content to let others review and arrive at a
consensus, but the system is not working this time. Its unclear to me
why you are being so insistent about this trivial matter. I will
continue to make approvals as necessary going forward, but I still
welcome your input and would prefer to settle on agreement to future
patches.
Fair enough - have fun.
Richard.
In summary, We don't want to do it your way so you wash your hands of it
and assign all VRP bugs to me stating I am now VRP maintainer.
Aldy started this relatively straightforward submission a month ago (!!
July 1st!), and we've made virtually no progress since then. You weren't
holding us up on technical merits, it appeared to be a personal
preference to not do things our way, despite the explanations and
cleanups it provided. I felt I had no choice but to move forward or we
will not get any code in before stage 1 ends. We're already a month
behind now, and with vacations looming I fear our initial goals are
already in serious danger. Our code certainly won't be in for as long
as I would have liked. I still don't know why you were so insistent it
had to be all your way... We made a lot of effort to accommodate you
out of respect for what you do for GCC, it would have been nice to see a
little in return.
Regardless, you have knowledge in this space which is useful, and we
welcome your input along the way should you decide to provide it.
Now, on to trying to improve ranges and VRP.
Andrew
