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 E39E13858D28 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:49:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E39E13858D28 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-73-Ksow5BvlNY2eVsFCC8Ig0g-1; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:49:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Ksow5BvlNY2eVsFCC8Ig0g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3251981CCB5; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.2.16.169]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C95455BE30; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:49:23 +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 1BGFnLNX2644495 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:49:21 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 1BGFnKYb2644494; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:49:20 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:49:20 +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: <20211216154920.GV2646553@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> <20211215184316.GM2646553@tucnak> <43576001-84b0-032c-37d6-6ea60cdf9ca6@gotplt.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <43576001-84b0-032c-37d6-6ea60cdf9ca6@gotplt.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 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: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:49:30 -0000 On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 06:11:27AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 12/16/21 00:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > 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. > > How about if I add an assert like so: > > if (tree_int_cst_compare (oldval, val)) > return true; > else > { > gcc_checking_assert (tree_int_cst_compare (old_wholeval, > wholeval) == 0); > return false; > } Yes, but please fix up formatting, wholeval should go below old_wholeval. Though, perhaps it would be better to: if (tree_int_cst_compare (oldval, val)) return true; gcc_checking_assert (tree_int_cst_compare (old_wholeval, wholeval) == 0); return false; Ok with that change. Jakub