| Message ID | AANLkTik0-EeoRCY_d6Vy9coYo9NwB2iaDkXF1CkKHfPQ@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 08/05/2010 12:11 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > HOST_WIDE_INT ct = INTVAL (operands[2]); > HOST_WIDE_INT cf = INTVAL (operands[3]); > HOST_WIDE_INT diff; > > diff = ct - cf; > > ... > > diff = -diff; > > I don't know what is the proper way to fix these. Any hints? Probably by simply making these (and a few other temporary) variables unsigned, so that we have defined 2s compliment arithmetic. It will require at least one cast here: > if (diff < 0) but there may be a few others. r~
Index: i386.c =================================================================== --- i386.c (revision 162897) +++ i386.c (working copy) @@ -10417,8 +10417,7 @@ ix86_decompose_address (rtx addr, struct to test cfun for being non-NULL. */ if (TARGET_K6 && cfun && optimize_function_for_speed_p (cfun) && base_reg && !index_reg && !disp - && REG_P (base_reg) - && REGNO_REG_CLASS (REGNO (base_reg)) == SIREG) + && REG_P (base_reg) && REGNO (base_reg) == SI_REG) disp = const0_rtx; /* Special case: encode reg+reg instead of reg*2. */
Hello! Attached patch fixes out-of-bound array access, reported in [1], fixing the first item in: <../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c, (10253:10)> : Reason : The current index is greater than array size! <../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c, (16316:17)> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow, BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 0 right (int32): -2147483648 <../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c, (16362:18)> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow, BINARY OPERATION: left (int32): 0 right (int32): -2147483648 <../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c, (16473:11)> : Op: -, Reason : Signed Subtraction Overflow, UNARY OPERATION: right (int32): -2147483648 2010-08-05 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_decompose_address): Check for SI_REG using REGNO of base_reg directly. As seen from the patch, quite interesting way of checking for SI_REG regno ;) Patch was tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, committed to mainline SVN. BTW: The other three failures are all in ix86_expand_int_movcc, where: HOST_WIDE_INT ct = INTVAL (operands[2]); HOST_WIDE_INT cf = INTVAL (operands[3]); HOST_WIDE_INT diff; diff = ct - cf; ... diff = -diff; I don't know what is the proper way to fix these. Any hints? Uros. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-08/msg00039.html