Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] tree-object-size: Use trees and support negative offsets

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:26:56AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 12/16/21 21:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> 
> I thought about this some more and I think I'm wrong in assuming that
> wholeval won't change in subsequent passes; my tests show I'm wrong too.
> I'm now testing with the condition fixed up to:
> 
>   return (tree_int_cst_compare (oldval, val) != 0
> 	  || tree_int_cst_compare (old_wholeval, wholeval) != 0);
> 
> as you had suggested earlier and will push it if it passes bootstrap and a
> clean testsuite run.  I'm doing a ubsan bootstrap too because it's been
> quite useful in catching corner cases in __bos before.

Ok.

	Jakub