From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22134 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2019 09:35:39 -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 22126 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jul 2019 09:35:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=assignments, talk X-HELO: mail-lj1-f194.google.com Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com (HELO mail-lj1-f194.google.com) (209.85.208.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:35:38 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id i21so8693183ljj.3 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 02:35:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VrT0CoKuNO+2JfMlmVi0lPqhoHr0dQhTlhNvFGEyERw=; b=i6nAN9Oebj5nosoHwElO3G6IL/lmz+GeYXqubujyQPywqfrmen6/5AZbHkKmTlb+SI cM8OoZA96MRbkAllM7kOakWHriWQ0jJkWGWo1xM9mB611y1br2bW1h7klJLEuL8Bf8ax sNWjXqATkvIl7sOpR7IjqLQHIQyfYSS62KEpREDY/vmeXmHfRVUmIIa8pAzGcYIA+rHs 1+yHOG4hZ/ghnKDcgcnhffuWHlblo9WHrpovOAgU6NJScvR7nqlOfAm1xE4mV0DSjGs6 a5N2TGdViK3bwC+6qzLuaUcyii8yPe0ogyvBN3BvNmyfasvn7yth1HtCJC6/iT8pFEw0 9fMg== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <976aadb5-b2d0-9799-4a42-c64b945d54c2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <976aadb5-b2d0-9799-4a42-c64b945d54c2@gmail.com> From: Richard Biener Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] add --param ssa-name-def-chain-limit To: Martin Sebor Cc: gcc-patches , Jeff Law Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00943.txt.bz2 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. Thanks, Richard. > Martin >