On Fri, Jul 1, 2022, 18:58 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 06:47:48PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > So, you are looking for something like trailing_wide_ints<N> but where
> that
> > > N is actually a runtime value? Then e.g. the
> > > struct {unsigned char len;} m_len[N];
> > > member can't work properly either, because it isn't constant size.
> >
> > What my patch does is store the run-time length in the aforementioned
> > byte, while defaulting to N/MAX. There is no size difference (or code
> > changes) for existing users. With my change, set_precision() and
> > extra_size() now take a runtime parameter, but it defaults to N and is
> > inlined, so there is no penalty for existing users. I benchmarked to
> > make sure :).
>
> So, you still use N = 3 but can sometimes store say 255 wide_ints in there?
> In that case, m_len[N] provides lengths just for the first 3, no?
>
You can still say N=255 and things continue to work as they do now, since
m_len[] is still statically determined. The only difference is that before,
the size of the structure would be 2+1+255+sizeof(int) whereas now it would
be 1 more because of the byte I'm using for num_elements.
The only time this would be an issue would be for say N=253 because the
size of everything except the ints is currently 256 (2+1+253), which is 64
bit aligned, whereas with my patch it would be 257 which takes an
additional word.
This is all theoretical because there are no users of trailing wide ints
greater than 3.
I guess what I'm really doing is changing the semantics of
trailing_wide_ints<N> to trailing_wide_ints<MAX> and what used to be the
number of elements is determined at run time....but the default is MAX so
everything continues to work the same for the current users.
Does that make sense?
Aldy
> Anyway, you really want feedback from Richard Sandiford IMHO...
>
> Jakub
>
>
