Re: [patch] Partial fix for PR 18048

[Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>]

Hello,

> >> While this is a good conceptual change, this is not the appropriate
> >> way to do it.  You are creating trees just to get fold() to do
> >> arithmetic for you, which wastes memory,
> >
> > no, I am not.  0 is a shared constant, so no allocation for
> > build_int_cst_type (niter_type, 0)), and EXEC_UNARY is
> > nondestructive_fold_unary_to_constant that also does not build any
> > trees (except for the result, of course).
> 
> That's nice.  You're still doing unnecessary work.

yes, however creating duplicated code just for purpose of saving a very
small amount of time on place that clearly is not critical does not
seem very useful to me.  I.e. I would rather stick with the simple 2
lines solution that is a bit suboptimal, rather than to implement your
20-lines one.

Of course if you want to do the change, you won't spoil anything by it.

Zdenek