From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 55523 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2019 17:05:57 -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 55515 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jul 2019 17:05:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*M:486d X-HELO: mail-qt1-f195.google.com Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com (HELO mail-qt1-f195.google.com) (209.85.160.195) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:05:55 +0000 Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id d23so8833473qto.2 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:05:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=La3IjT9rgWlEzYjNl4E+36W7jOQB3pCwS8243JdCRd4=; b=VuzeJt0/ka3BReyfQOWgMP8fieq0k9ior1io1JNHxf223WoQ4cRjoU4cpecOzdw8cH suIfL43J+Ltgule+mlsvPru5n7GLLWSd/TrBpx0rETW8lYj4obmEMl9RoL7v8z5HbzBz a7uoDqRUvD25UqMysVWl9hHGrFzqjYvrpqRllSXQvn4O61qffTu3RXW2WZcTKV0KGo5h qJ0bRBYXp0S4kqHcDJXqGgzR0mTg1uWvZ9I7xN6Nv1zWs8DjwKPcPo4ezjXMHTlbRJd5 ItU+0vZUEhwFAmo8idYnSB76cg3drDHv2Pwz29Rpdy+Iz3qZ6ZmjUwkkuUgvm/Zz9f1s FLng== Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.0.41] (184-96-248-45.hlrn.qwest.net. [184.96.248.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a67sm4349707qkg.131.2019.07.12.10.05.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] add --param ssa-name-def-chain-limit To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches , Jeff Law References: <976aadb5-b2d0-9799-4a42-c64b945d54c2@gmail.com> From: Martin Sebor Message-ID: <797d0896-486d-60fa-3c0d-d1b36765b3ba@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:25:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00994.txt.bz2 On 7/12/19 3:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 7:43 PM Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> Attached is a patch that adds a new parameter to limit the number >> of SSA_NAME assignments for GCC to follow in iterative or recursive >> algorithms. Purely as a proof of concept the patch introduces >> the parameter into -Warray-bounds where the warning follows >> POINTER_PLUS (and ASSERT_EXPR) assignments to get at the DECL >> the final pointer points to. >> >> With this "infrastructure" in place the parameter can start to be >> introduced wherever else it might be necessary. I don't know of >> any pathological cases where it actually is necessary (i.e., one >> the 512 default keeps from going off the rails) so the test I have >> put together for it is artificial. A better test case involving >> one of the known recursive algorithms would be helpful. > > The docs talk about diagnostics so I wonder if the param > name should include that as well, otherwise OK. I committed the patch as is for now. The parameter's effect is on both, optimization and diagnostics, so a generic name seems like a good fit. Plus, I couldn't off hand think of a better name. We can always change it if you or someone else comes up with one. Martin