Final patch committed.

tmp_range has been renamed to Value_Range.

Value_Range::init() has been renamed to set_type() which is more obvious.

Default constructor for Value_Range now points the vrange to the
unsupported_range object, so we always have an object available.

Re-tested on x86-64 Linux.

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 8:21 AM Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 4:56 PM Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/30/22 09:27, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > Now that we have generic ranges, we need a way to define generic local
> > > temporaries on the stack for intermediate calculations in the ranger
> > > and elsewhere.  We need temporaries analogous to int_range_max, but
> > > for any of the supported types (currently just integers, but soon
> > > integers, pointers, and floats).
> > >
> > > The tmp_range object is such a temporary.  It is designed to be
> > > transparently used as a vrange.  It shares vrange's abstract API, and
> > > implicitly casts itself to a vrange when passed around.
> > >
> > > The ultimate name will be value_range, but we need to remove legacy
> > > first for that to happen.  Until then, tmp_range will do.
> > >
> > I was going to suggest maybe renaming value_range to legacy_range or
> > something, and then start using value_range for ranges of any time.
> > Then it occurred to me that numerous places which use value_range
> > will/can continue to use value_range going forward.. ie
> >
> > value_range vr;
> >   if (!rvals->range_of_expr (vr, name, stmt))
> >     return -1;
> >
> > would be unaffected, to it would be pointless turmoil to rename that and
> > then rename it back to value_range.
> >
> > I also notice there are already a few instance of local variable named
> > tmp_range, which make name renames annoying.   Perhaps we should use
> > Value_Range or something like that in the interim for the multi-type
> > ranges?   Then the rename is trivial down the road, formatting will be
> > unaffected, and then we're kinda sorta using the end_goal name?
>
> OMG that is so ugly!  Although I guess it would be temporary.
>
> Speaking of which, how far away are we from enabling ranger in VRP1?
> Because once we do that, we can start nuking legacy and cleaning all
> this up.
>
> Aldy