From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-369442-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10418 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2014 14:36:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10401 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jun 2014 14:36:37 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx2.suse.de
Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:36:34 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9D6AC7A;	Wed,  4 Jun 2014 14:36:31 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:36:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com>
cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 19/x] Support bounds in expand
In-Reply-To: <CAMbmDYZwAMOBiRFeiecYV_gkBpozfs1j+e9kTnPqko7d+GWY9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1406041634420.25307@wotan.suse.de>
References: <20140602150245.GB53659@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1406021721540.25307@wotan.suse.de> <CAMbmDYZwAMOBiRFeiecYV_gkBpozfs1j+e9kTnPqko7d+GWY9w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2

Hi,

On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote:

> > There is exactly one place (except for the self-recursive ones) where 
> > you call the new store_expr with a non-null argument for bounds 
> > target, and it seems to be only necessary for when some sub-expression 
> > of the RHS is a call.  Can you somehow arrange to move that handling 
> > to the single place in expand_assignment() so that you don't need to 
> > change the signature of store_expr?
> 
> I see the only nice way to do it - store_expr should return bounds of 
> expanded exp. Currently it always return NULL_RTX. Does it look better 
> than a new argument?

IMHO it does.  That or introducing a new store_expr_with_bounds (with the 
new argument) and letting store_expr be a wrapper for that, passing the 
NULL.  Basically anything that avoids adding a new parameter for most of 
the existing calls to store_expr.


Ciao,
Michael.