From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63288 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2019 11:27:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 63279 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2019 11:27:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:27:36 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED2B681F12; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:27:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.40.205.45]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83E1E608C1; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:27:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x3HBRWPH011403; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:27:32 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x3HBRVbV011402; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:27:31 +0200 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:35:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: "Bin.Cheng" Cc: "bin.cheng" , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH PR90078]Capping comp_cost computation in ivopts Message-ID: <20190417112731.GV21066@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <7cb22a67-89e5-45d3-aef4-398311416140.bin.cheng@linux.alibaba.com> <20190417071001.GR21066@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00701.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 07:14:05PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote: > > As > > #define INFTY 10000000 > > what is the reason to keep the previous condition as well? > > I mean, if cost1.cost == INFTY or cost2.cost == INFTY, > > cost1.cost + cost2.cost >= INFTY too. > > Unless costs can go negative. > It's a bit complicated, but in general, costs can go negative. Ok, no objections from me then (but as I don't know anything about it, not an ack either; you are ivopts maintainer, so you don't need one). Jakub