From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E2DB3854543 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:25:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5E2DB3854543 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-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id z4so210279ljq.6 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:25:39 -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=LU+0Ypv4DbNDhJYZ2W/SawUUzfHwNr5Bj2fz6Jf6q0I=; b=h5VVgjsY+N9ohG4tM+HHx5PoYkfQxllrlTz4IZGPSMExjw32uZ8IHJIcaNoV22rOOz PISEnD4OpiJerVuoDXLQKuWYK32m6AiedwOIgNYyMipxF4dPJlL+5OEWM7bae79x4Qft NyymzrEbaMkKfTEO2Rw1UDSqdHm3/JJmBPq/AvytSg5qxCwbsyrtkh1XvCQMNSt2K+R2 ogMFfkMfG6mw21o0d47uQJ7dFhDeUXlS9xUHjGp8tlJu+y9uGlkXCW1IK9RoQ+Y+BvwT ZuZ+qudWDSdJLnF5aqCOKI3uor99veiaXfCreu9Hrr7w+4bh4uPDSUEUV3AqmDvuh0lU 344g== 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=LU+0Ypv4DbNDhJYZ2W/SawUUzfHwNr5Bj2fz6Jf6q0I=; b=0Qk34gAI8fMoRk1Q8Taqyk6ouicEpcBCoSrsg3dPx/ZcMMgi9BMqZwLDT7+Tf/PF+y hYiEPAdUmo1w3bH119P00Rr3sk8aw8XEdF+AlWppZ6lhLDoFt+XJTTDt57cGlnCa3Fqt aTNZXQat+gvvVAqJRGUmIP5XUbjjv57ETLCT0hqaydSl9v8uxbjsTnbl9frCSIjqhx5I dzjbjjBC8iYv/b9BzWPKjFTOTwdHri83nV1lfMEfAWp2PFlwf55iQoRErm0caC7jXWq6 RCgDMnxRfo54KBqmawFTQ25JuWV6fPChN8NATZOJL1fzgrfCJMye8FicKtYxI58RUDxs 3Ylw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plSfDaw6+ZzIJZo1m+1Izc8cBQBcuA0sKPTTOFVVmUOPbpGEziq PfNIXnBlTh5OdkGJgw+l94Dp+eAlX9+L9z7qUhkG07MG X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4qQBe9PRZGLBSfejnu5vWFouSO5pCvFu2fczfk4SdUrVpM1onbELxH+bV7TmRvK4pjt16PLkqDU5s16qT9gCU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:337:b0:277:7714:3fca with SMTP id b23-20020a05651c033700b0027777143fcamr6902646ljp.529.1669105536597; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:25:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2eb36356-ffbf-6c8b-2824-08e204280d52@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:25:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove legacy VRP (maybe?) To: Jeff Law Cc: Aldy Hernandez , Jakub Jelinek , "MacLeod, Andrew" , gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 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 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? Richard. > Thanks, > Richard. > > > > > jeff > >