On 8/4/20 8:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:37 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* fold-const.c (expr_not_equal_to): Adjust for irange API.
---
gcc/fold-const.c | 17 ++++-------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c
index 1324a194995..5d27927f6bf 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -10194,8 +10194,7 @@ tree_expr_nonzero_p (tree t)
bool
expr_not_equal_to (tree t, const wide_int &w)
{
- wide_int min, max, nz;
- value_range_kind rtype;
+ value_range vr;
switch (TREE_CODE (t))
{
case INTEGER_CST:
@@ -10204,17 +10203,9 @@ expr_not_equal_to (tree t, const wide_int &w)
case SSA_NAME:
if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t)))
return false;
- rtype = get_range_info (t, &min, &max);
- if (rtype == VR_RANGE)
- {
- if (wi::lt_p (max, w, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t))))
- return true;
- if (wi::lt_p (w, min, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t))))
- return true;
- }
- else if (rtype == VR_ANTI_RANGE
- && wi::le_p (min, w, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t)))
- && wi::le_p (w, max, TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (t))))
+ get_range_info (t, vr);
Ick. Do we now use references for out parameters? I find this
highly non-obvious semantics. What's wrong with
vr = get_range_info (t);
if you dislike get_range_info (t, &vr)?
Using references was decided last year.
We want the ability of to use the same range granularity as what the
user requested, so we can't just return a range, as we don't know how
many sub-ranges the user wants:
int_range<10> big_range;
twiddle_range(big_range);
We want the above to work with big_range, or a small range, or a
value_range. Twiddle_range should be range agnostic.
get_range_info(const_tree, value_range &) has been available since last
year. I suppose if one were so inclined, one could change it to take a
pointer to be consistent with the other get_range_info() overload.
Aldy
