On 02/14/2017 01:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
I spoke with Andrew a bit today, he's consistently seeing cases where the
union of 3 ranges is necessary to resolve the kinds of queries we're
interested in. He's made a design decision not to use anti-ranges in his
work, so y'all are in sync on that long term.
Ok. I'd also not hard-code the number of union ranges but make the code
agnostic. Still the actual implementation might take a #define / template param
for an upper bound.
Andrew was in-sync on not hard-coding the number of ranges either --
essentially he's considering the possibility that consumers might want
different levels of detail and thus a different number of recorded union
ranges.
I'm not 100% sure that level of engineering is needed, but a design
which accounts for that inherently avoids hard-coding the upper bound.
Jeff
