| Message ID | CAFiYyc2GQUunJamEBktDyazRx909meHf1EzfhZa0XzbKwqOWBA@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
yes, i had caught that when i merged it in with the patches that used it, is it ok aside from that? kenny On 04/03/2013 05:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote: >> this time for sure. > Almost ... > > diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c > index 330b42c..92d54a3 100644 > --- a/gcc/hwint.c > +++ b/gcc/hwint.c > @@ -204,3 +204,35 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, HOST_WIDE_INT b) > { > return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); > } > + > +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING > > #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING > > +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ > + > +HOST_WIDE_INT > +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) > +{ > + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); > + > > Ok with that change. (maybe catch one random use of the pattern > in code and use the helpers - that would have catched this issue) > > Thanks, > Richard. > > > >> kenny >> >> On 04/02/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Richard, >>>> >>>> did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on >>>> x86-64. >>>> ok to commit? >>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c >>> index 330b42c..7e5b85c 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/hwint.c >>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.c >>> @@ -204,3 +204,33 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, HOST_WIDE_INT >>> b) >>> { >>> return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); >>> } >>> + >>> +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING >>> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >>> + >>> +HOST_WIDE_INT >>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>> >>> this should go to hwint.h, and without the masking of prec. >>> while ... >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.h b/gcc/hwint.h >>> index da62fad..9dddf05 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/hwint.h >>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.h >>> @@ -276,4 +316,42 @@ 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. */ >>> + >>> +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >>> +extern HOST_WIDE_INT sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, unsigned int); >>> +#else >>> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT >>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>> +{ >>> + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); >>> >>> this should go to hwint.c (also without masking prec). >>> >>> Richard. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> kenny >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04/02/2013 05:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>>
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote: > yes, i had caught that when i merged it in with the patches that used it, is > it ok aside from that? Yes. Thanks, Richard. > kenny > > On 04/03/2013 05:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> this time for sure. >> >> Almost ... >> >> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c >> index 330b42c..92d54a3 100644 >> --- a/gcc/hwint.c >> +++ b/gcc/hwint.c >> @@ -204,3 +204,35 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, HOST_WIDE_INT >> b) >> { >> return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); >> } >> + >> +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING >> >> #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >> >> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >> + >> +HOST_WIDE_INT >> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >> +{ >> + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); >> + >> >> Ok with that change. (maybe catch one random use of the pattern >> in code and use the helpers - that would have catched this issue) >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >> >> >>> kenny >>> >>> On 04/02/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck >>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Richard, >>>>> >>>>> did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on >>>>> x86-64. >>>>> ok to commit? >>>> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c >>>> index 330b42c..7e5b85c 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/hwint.c >>>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.c >>>> @@ -204,3 +204,33 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, >>>> HOST_WIDE_INT >>>> b) >>>> { >>>> return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); >>>> } >>>> + >>>> +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING >>>> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >>>> + >>>> +HOST_WIDE_INT >>>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>>> >>>> this should go to hwint.h, and without the masking of prec. >>>> while ... >>>> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.h b/gcc/hwint.h >>>> index da62fad..9dddf05 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/hwint.h >>>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.h >>>> @@ -276,4 +316,42 @@ 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. */ >>>> + >>>> +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >>>> +extern HOST_WIDE_INT sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, unsigned int); >>>> +#else >>>> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT >>>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>>> +{ >>>> + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); >>>> >>>> this should go to hwint.c (also without masking prec). >>>> >>>> Richard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> kenny >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 04/02/2013 05:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>>> >
committed as revision 197456 kenny On 04/03/2013 08:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Kenneth Zadeck > <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote: >> yes, i had caught that when i merged it in with the patches that used it, is >> it ok aside from that? > Yes. > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> kenny >> >> On 04/03/2013 05:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> >>> wrote: >>>> this time for sure. >>> Almost ... >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c >>> index 330b42c..92d54a3 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/hwint.c >>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.c >>> @@ -204,3 +204,35 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, HOST_WIDE_INT >>> b) >>> { >>> return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); >>> } >>> + >>> +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING >>> >>> #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >>> >>> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >>> + >>> +HOST_WIDE_INT >>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>> +{ >>> + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); >>> + >>> >>> Ok with that change. (maybe catch one random use of the pattern >>> in code and use the helpers - that would have catched this issue) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Richard. >>> >>> >>> >>>> kenny >>>> >>>> On 04/02/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck >>>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Richard, >>>>>> >>>>>> did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on >>>>>> x86-64. >>>>>> ok to commit? >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c >>>>> index 330b42c..7e5b85c 100644 >>>>> --- a/gcc/hwint.c >>>>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.c >>>>> @@ -204,3 +204,33 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, >>>>> HOST_WIDE_INT >>>>> b) >>>>> { >>>>> return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); >>>>> } >>>>> + >>>>> +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING >>>>> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >>>>> + >>>>> +HOST_WIDE_INT >>>>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>>>> >>>>> this should go to hwint.h, and without the masking of prec. >>>>> while ... >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.h b/gcc/hwint.h >>>>> index da62fad..9dddf05 100644 >>>>> --- a/gcc/hwint.h >>>>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.h >>>>> @@ -276,4 +316,42 @@ 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. */ >>>>> + >>>>> +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >>>>> +extern HOST_WIDE_INT sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, unsigned int); >>>>> +#else >>>>> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT >>>>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); >>>>> >>>>> this should go to hwint.c (also without masking prec). >>>>> >>>>> Richard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> kenny >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/02/2013 05:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>>>> 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 --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c index 330b42c..92d54a3 100644 --- a/gcc/hwint.c +++ b/gcc/hwint.c @@ -204,3 +204,35 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, HOST_WIDE_INT b) { return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); } + +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ + +HOST_WIDE_INT +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) +{ + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); + Ok with that change. (maybe catch one random use of the pattern in code and use the helpers - that would have catched this issue) Thanks, Richard. > kenny > > On 04/02/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Richard, >>> >>> did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on >>> x86-64.