Re: [PATCH] Add param for bb limit to invoke fast_vrp.

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>]

On 6/24/24 22:35, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 7:20 PM Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
>>     // Fill ssa-cache R with any outgoing ranges on edge E, using QUERY.
>>     bool gori_on_edge (class ssa_cache &r, edge e, range_query *query =
>> NULL);
>>
>> This is what the fast_vrp routines uses.  We can gather all range
>> restrictions generated from an edge efficiently just once and then
>> intersect them with a known range as we walk the different paths. We
>> don't need the gori exports , nor any of the other on-demand bits where
>> we calculate each export range dynamically.. I suspect it would reduce
>> the workload and memory impact quite a bit, but I'm not really familiar
>> with exactly how the threader uses those things.
>>
>> It'd require some minor tweaking to the lazy_ssa_cache to make the
>> bitmap of names set accessible. This  would provide similar
>> functionality to what the gori export () routine provides.  Both
>> relations and inferred ranges should only need to be calculated once per
>> block as well and could/should/would be applied the same way if they are
>> present.   I don't *think* the threader uses any of the def chains, but
>> Aldy can chip in.
> +   warning (OPT_Wdisabled_optimization,
> +    "Using fast VRP algorithm. %d basic blocks"
> +    " exceeds %s%d limit",
> +    n_basic_blocks_for_fn (fun),
> +    "--param=vrp-block-limit=",
> +    param_vrp_block_limit);
>
> This should be:
> warning (OPT_Wdisabled_optimization, "Using fast VRP algorithm. %d basic blocks"
>      " exceeds %<%--param=vrp-block-limit=d%> limit",
> n_basic_blocks_for_fn (fun), param_vrp_block_limit);
>
> I had thought it was mentioned that options should be quoted but it is
> not mentioned in the coding conventions:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Diagnostics
>
> But it is mentioned in
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/2d2bd844-2de4-ecff-7a07-b2235075074c@gmail.com/
> ; This is why you were getting an error as you mentioned on IRC.
>
>
I didnt do that because when I did, everything in bracketed by the %< %> 
in the warning came out in bold text.  is that the intended effect?


Andrew.