diff mbox

patch to fix constant math - first small patch - patch ping for the next stage 1

Message ID 51587791.9090105@naturalbridge.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Kenneth Zadeck March 31, 2013, 5:51 p.m. UTC 
richard,

I was able to add everything except for the checking asserts.    While I 
think that this is a reasonable idea, it is difficult to add that to a 
function that is defined in hwint.h because of circular includes.   I 
could move this another file (though this appears to be the logical 
correct place for it), or we can do without the asserts.

The context is that [sz]ext_hwi is that are used are over the compiler 
but are generally written out long.   The wide-int class uses them also, 
but wide-int did not see like the right place for them to live and i 
believe that you suggested that i move them.

ok to commit, or do you have a suggested resolution to the assert issue?

kenny


On 03/27/2013 10:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
>> Here is the first of my wide int patches with joseph's comments and the
>> patch rot removed.
>>
>> I would like to get these pre approved for the next stage 1.
> +      int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - (prec &
> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1));
>
> I think this should gcc_checking_assert that prec is not out of range
> (any reason why prec is signed int and not unsigned int?) rather than
> ignore bits in prec.
>
> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT
> +zext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, int prec)
> +{
> +  if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
> +    return src;
> +  else
> +    return src & (((HOST_WIDE_INT)1
> +                  << (prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1))) - 1);
> +}
>
> likewise.  Also I'm not sure I agree about the signedness of the result / src.
> zext_hwi (-1, HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) < 0 is true which is odd.
>
> The patch misses context of uses, so I'm not sure what the above functions
> are intended to do.
>
> Richard.
>
>> On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>>
>>>> +# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
>>> This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and there's
>>> no real need for using "h" here given the promotion of short to int; you
>>> can just use "" (rather than e.g. needing special handling in xm-mingw32.h
>>> like is done for HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT).
>>>
2013-3-31  Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com>

	* hwint.h (HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT, HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT,
	HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT, HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C,
	HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC_C,
	HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_UNSIGNED, HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX,
	HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX_PURE): New symbols.
	(sext_hwi, zext_hwi): New functions.

Comments

Richard Biener April 2, 2013, 9:38 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
> richard,
>
> I was able to add everything except for the checking asserts.    While I
> think that this is a reasonable idea, it is difficult to add that to a
> function that is defined in hwint.h because of circular includes.   I could
> move this another file (though this appears to be the logical correct place
> for it), or we can do without the asserts.
>
> The context is that [sz]ext_hwi is that are used are over the compiler but
> are generally written out long.   The wide-int class uses them also, but
> wide-int did not see like the right place for them to live and i believe
> that you suggested that i move them.
>
> ok to commit, or do you have a suggested resolution to the assert issue?

Yes, do

#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
extern HOST_WIDE_INT sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, unsigned int);
#else
+/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC.  */
+
+static inline HOST_WIDE_INT
+sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec)
+{
+  if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
+    return src;
+  else
+    {
        int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - prec;
+      return (src << shift) >> shift;
+    }
+}
#endif

and for ENABLE_CHECKING only provide an out-of-line implementation
in hwint.c.  That's how we did it with abs_hwi (well, we just do not provide
an inline variant there - that's another possibility).

Note that hwint.h is always included after config.h so the ENABLE_CHECKING
definition should be available.

Richard.

>
> kenny
>
>
> On 03/27/2013 10:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is the first of my wide int patches with joseph's comments and the
>>> patch rot removed.
>>>
>>> I would like to get these pre approved for the next stage 1.
>>
>> +      int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - (prec &
>> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1));
>>
>> I think this should gcc_checking_assert that prec is not out of range
>> (any reason why prec is signed int and not unsigned int?) rather than
>> ignore bits in prec.
>>
>> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT
>> +zext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, int prec)
>> +{
>> +  if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
>> +    return src;
>> +  else
>> +    return src & (((HOST_WIDE_INT)1
>> +                  << (prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1))) - 1);
>> +}
>>
>> likewise.  Also I'm not sure I agree about the signedness of the result /
>> src.
>> zext_hwi (-1, HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) < 0 is true which is odd.
>>
>> The patch misses context of uses, so I'm not sure what the above functions
>> are intended to do.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
>>>>
>>>> This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and
>>>> there's
>>>> no real need for using "h" here given the promotion of short to int; you
>>>> can just use "" (rather than e.g. needing special handling in
>>>> xm-mingw32.h
>>>> like is done for HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT).
>>>>
>
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/hwint.h b/gcc/hwint.h
index da62fad..b086af0 100644
--- a/gcc/hwint.h
+++ b/gcc/hwint.h
@@ -76,6 +76,40 @@  extern char sizeof_long_long_must_be_8[sizeof(long long) == 8 ? 1 : -1];
 # endif
 #endif
 
+/* Print support for half a host wide int.  */
+#define HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT / 2)
+#if HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT == HOST_BITS_PER_LONG
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT long
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT HOST_LONG_FORMAT
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C "L"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "d"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC_C HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_UNSIGNED "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "u"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX "%#" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "x"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX_PURE "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "x"
+#elif HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT == HOST_BITS_PER_INT
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT int
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT ""
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C ""
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "d"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC_C HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_UNSIGNED "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "u"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX "%#" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "x"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX_PURE "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "x"
+#elif HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT == HOST_BITS_PER_SHORT
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT short
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT ""
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C ""
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "d"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC_C HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_UNSIGNED "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "u"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX "%#" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "x"
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX_PURE "%" HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "x"
+#else
+#error Please add support for HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT
+#endif
+
+
 #define HOST_WIDE_INT_1 HOST_WIDE_INT_C(1)
 
 /* This is a magic identifier which allows GCC to figure out the type
@@ -93,9 +127,13 @@  typedef HOST_WIDE_INT __gcc_host_wide_int__;
 # if HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT == 64
 #  define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DOUBLE_HEX \
      "0x%" HOST_LONG_FORMAT "x%016" HOST_LONG_FORMAT "x"
+#  define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_PADDED_HEX \
+     "%016" HOST_LONG_FORMAT "x"
 # else
 #  define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DOUBLE_HEX \
      "0x%" HOST_LONG_FORMAT "x%08" HOST_LONG_FORMAT "x"
+#  define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_PADDED_HEX \
+     "%08" HOST_LONG_FORMAT "x"
 # endif
 #else
 # define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT
@@ -103,6 +141,8 @@  typedef HOST_WIDE_INT __gcc_host_wide_int__;
   /* We can assume that 'long long' is at least 64 bits.  */
 # define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DOUBLE_HEX \
     "0x%" HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT "x%016" HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT "x"
+# define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_PADDED_HEX \
+    "%016" HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT "x"
 #endif /* HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT == HOST_BITS_PER_LONG */
 
 #define HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC "%" HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT "d"
@@ -276,4 +316,31 @@  extern HOST_WIDE_INT pos_mul_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, HOST_WIDE_INT);
 extern HOST_WIDE_INT mul_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, HOST_WIDE_INT);
 extern HOST_WIDE_INT least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT, HOST_WIDE_INT);
 
+/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC.  */
+
+static inline HOST_WIDE_INT
+sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec)
+{
+  if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
+    return src;
+  else
+    {
+      int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 
+	(prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1));
+      return (src << shift) >> shift;
+    }
+}
+
+/* Zero extend SRC starting from PREC.  */
+
+static inline unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
+zext_hwi (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec)
+{
+  if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
+    return src;
+  else
+    return src & (((HOST_WIDE_INT)1
+		   << (prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1))) - 1);
+}
+
 #endif /* ! GCC_HWINT_H */