> Hi, > > >> + /* If the function is not local, the gathered information is only > >> useful > >> + for clones. */ > >> + if (!node->local) > >> + continue; > > > > Assume we have A->B->C where A sets value ranges, B can be called > > externally and C is local and would benefit from known range. > > If we clone B then we will end up > > > > A->B'->C > > B ->C > > > > and C will not see the value range passed from A? > > However if we decide to clone C for some other reason we will have > > > > A->B'->C' > > B ->C > > and here C' will see the value range and C will not? > > I do not see how you can distinguish these situation as > > ipcp_store_vr_results time? > > yes, I thought I had told you in person, the patch is wrong. I have > found out just a few days after posting it already when testing the > patch-set further. We'd need a bit in the lattice itself to distinguish > this and the effort should probably be spent making value-range lattices > for cloning.
Yep, I recall we spoke about this. This is what I get by getting late to reading patches. I think we should aim towards clonning for multiple contexts. Honza > > Martin
