From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F063858407 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:43:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 32F063858407 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-31-On7adfU-MeGhaPCzX3UIKg-1; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:43:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: On7adfU-MeGhaPCzX3UIKg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246141023F4E; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:43:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.2.16.169]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7E555BD2F; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:43:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 1BFIhHkX2510186 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:43:17 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 1BFIhGWH2510185; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:43:16 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:43:16 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] tree-object-size: Use trees and support negative offsets Message-ID: <20211215184316.GM2646553@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20211109190137.1107736-1-siddhesh@gotplt.org> <20211201142757.4086840-1-siddhesh@gotplt.org> <20211201142757.4086840-2-siddhesh@gotplt.org> <20211215152151.GJ2646553@tucnak> <873ad5ef-2d95-4f11-bb4e-b82fa2a1ddf2@gotplt.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <873ad5ef-2d95-4f11-bb4e-b82fa2a1ddf2@gotplt.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:43:24 -0000 On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:42:29PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 12/15/21 20:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Shouldn't this also tree_int_cst_compare (old_wholeval, wholeval) ? > > > > AFAICT, there is no situation where wholeval changes but val doesn't, so I > believe the val check should be sufficient. Do you think otherwise? Dunno, just something that caught my eye. Jakub