From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5608738418AB for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 20:09:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5608738418AB Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id s8so29757218lfc.8 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 12:09:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5i0wFw1p5w6cB20bG4LRQfXq2S5B/e6L1FXpn8Qu4BE=; b=SfsVWiJMcZuSZVG80T0jGBJ/mT3WbeR5pU9Z0ilSRQHlP/0Co1iqDzwthcPBLFMVg2 mSdJTwDmAaIP4cRMVRKK5uSpF+82wXIKclwkLvFMJ+SqjoQxfQWDPIPB8LeERwzxU6CE IlP8g2X0Ip+uMwanJXf3Nr0jpK6TvmtN4vEgaI45FhIP2LuTbU39IAoxxNfU7RojgcGc v6jXXSg691gjvnjg4wyxyPDnOXSzxWsYd1fqGHPyWhJyYHdbocN4Rzx4P1YUbsGUwUFv cmeuMOPu/an8hwfDkDuLZTl/+75DbeSOFTwLagdKTcR7vWGvPk+Os6+hz8uNBydARMON t27w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=5i0wFw1p5w6cB20bG4LRQfXq2S5B/e6L1FXpn8Qu4BE=; b=sGSOdzHGHuyQ3getMqImh9fdc3artjVO+nyC9/fGpHZT2gbGObf71GUIAvxFlvZ5Gx hOZ40Zj+CX58QOMVFwhWJGi95n86vvl33VNUvHoZSMgw+1Y9tQ7sQqxfaQKn6sWvRK5x yS/tBWhb8JVF6DBprkdO9ZW3WjOWKM7AZl5uBuev0TS8YEMc11x3+COZbA8epfAr7q4L x5N3WiVz+/Jiea29uLYnH5Upy96SAq1bdaRvYgrYHEdkHGSvmP4jZdpwzNq4vAlXg6o1 l0gnbW3jdraGTASVFb/nEmXdx5Eembw6cukWyjHgtdF/EQ6S5hsh3xlO7uam2jUQUB6g z3AQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plbr0vDKc6IFJdW9hUKAf6B0JEuvvS36dAevHrU5jzAIM2tVx+3 F94dVDP+cmdnXUzzar7ie3vGggOUlBKAGOO/kIw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6Uq494cu3JDiiubdz3WVa7LVFOI8EwP2oJfe6obi1BMAEHfRWHUgYO1Bo4OWI/3WW50T/WlJcS4838ZvOZxIs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:e86:b0:4b4:70d9:5c02 with SMTP id bi6-20020a0565120e8600b004b470d95c02mr9733325lfb.27.1669234181525; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 12:09:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2eb36356-ffbf-6c8b-2824-08e204280d52@gmail.com> <84f3725f-7635-2ff1-22d7-1dcdb544cdfd@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <84f3725f-7635-2ff1-22d7-1dcdb544cdfd@redhat.com> From: Richard Biener Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:09:28 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove legacy VRP (maybe?) To: Aldy Hernandez Cc: Jeff Law , Jakub Jelinek , "MacLeod, Andrew" , gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 2:40 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote: > > > > On 11/22/22 10:22, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:04 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11/22/22 09:25, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 9:24 AM Richard Biener > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:49 PM Jeff Law wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 11/21/22 09:35, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>>>> I've been playing around with removing the legacy VRP code for the > >>>>>> next release. It's a layered onion to get this right, but the first > >>>>>> bit is pretty straightforward and may be useful for this release. > >>>>>> Basically, it entails removing the old VRP pass itself, along with > >>>>>> value_range_equiv which have no producers left. The current users of > >>>>>> value_range_equiv don't put anything in the equivalence bitmaps, so > >>>>>> they're basically behaving like plain value_range. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I removed as much as possible without having to change any behavior, > >>>>>> and this is what I came up with. Is this something that would be > >>>>>> useful for this release? Would it help release managers have less > >>>>>> unused cruft in the tree? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Neither Andrew nor I have any strong feelings here. We don't foresee > >>>>>> the legacy code changing at all in the offseason, so we can just > >>>>>> accumulate these patches in local trees. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd lean towards removal after gcc-13 releases. > >>>> > >>>> I think removing the ability to switch to the old implementation easens > >>>> maintainance so I'd prefer to have this before the gcc-13 release. > >>>> > >>>> So please go ahead. > >>> > >>> Btw, ASSERT_EXPR should also go away with this, no? > >> > >> Ah yes, for everything except ipa-*.* which uses it internally (and sets > >> it in its internal structures): > >> > >> - ASSERT_EXPR means that only the value in operand is allowed to > >> pass > >> through (without any change), for all other values the result is > >> unknown. > > > > Ick. But yeah, I can see how 'ASSERT_EXPR' looked nice to use here > > (but it's only a distinct value, so TARGET_OPTION_NODE would have > > worked here as well) > > > >> I can remove all other uses, including any externally visible documentation. > > > > Works for me. > > Documented and added change log entries. Retested on x86-64 Linux. > > There are three follow-up patches removing ASSERT_EXPR which I'll post > shortly. > > OK for trunk? OK. Thanks, Richard. > Aldy