On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/25/13 02:22, bin.cheng wrote: >>>> >>>> Unless there's a PR for this problem, I think this needs to wait. >>> >>> I agree. Btw, please split the patch. >> Yes, I will get back to this after entering stage 1 again :) >> >> Hi Richard, >> I talked with you about clean strip_offset_1 up after this series of >> base simplification patches, but I realized it's not safe because >> affine facility has it's limit, like can only support 8 elements. >> Though the cleanup passes bootstrap and test on x86/x86_64 and most of >> codes in strip_offset_1 won't be executed usually, I guess we'd better >> to live with it, so what do you think? > > Not sure - I'm lacking some context here ;) If you have a cleanup patch > fine - WRT the affine limit of 8 elements, further elements will just > add to the rest tree. This is to limit compile-time. Yes, so it's possible to have COMPONENT_REF stored in rest tree if we reach the 8 elements limit. In this case the COMPONENT_REF will be visited by the code in strip_offset_1, although it sounds unlikely to happen.
Thanks, bin > > Richard.
