On 8/14/19 8:15 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > > > On 8/14/19 9:50 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> On 8/13/19 8:39 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, it was 2X. >>> >>> I noticed that Richi made some changes to the lattice handling for >>> VARYING while the discussion was on-going. I missed these, and had >>> failed to adapt the patch for it. I would appreciate a final review >>> of the attached patch, especially the vr-values.c changes, which I >>> have modified to play nice with current trunk. >>> >>> I also noticed that Andrew's patch was setting num_vr_values to >>> num_ssa_names + num_ssa_names / 10. I think he meant num_vr_values + >>> num_vr_values / 10. Please verify the current incantation makes sense. >>> >> no, I meant num_ssa_names. We are resizing the vector because >> num_vr_values is out of date (and smaller than num_ssa_names is now), >> so we need to resize the vector to be at least the number of >> ssa-names... and I added 10% just in case we arent done adding new ones. >> >> >> if num_vr_values is 100, and we've added 200 ssa-names, num_ssa_names >> would now be 300. if you resize based on num_vr_values, you could >> still go off the end of the vector. > > OK, I've changed the resize to allocate 2X as well. So now we'll have: > > + unsigned int old_sz = num_vr_values; > + num_vr_values = num_ssa_names * 2; > + vr_value = XRESIZEVEC (value_range *, vr_value, num_vr_values); > etc > > And the original allocation will also be 2X. I don't think we want the resize to be 2X, we've tried to get away from those kinds of growth patterns. The 10% from Andrew's patch seems like a better choice for the resize.
jeff
