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

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Richard Guenther
Date April 3, 2013, 9:32 a.m.
Message ID <CAFiYyc2GQUunJamEBktDyazRx909meHf1EzfhZa0XzbKwqOWBA@mail.gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/233325/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Richard Guenther - April 3, 2013, 9:32 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
> this time for sure.

Almost ...

>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>
>
Kenneth Zadeck - April 3, 2013, 10:47 a.m.
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).
>>>>>>>>>
Richard Guenther - April 3, 2013, 12:05 p.m.
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).
>>>>>>>>>>
>
Kenneth Zadeck - April 3, 2013, 8:25 p.m.
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).
>>>>>>>>>>>

Patch

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.