[Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5.0 regression] 64bit Arch can't ivopt while 32bit Arch can

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173

--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I really wonder why IVOPTs calls convert_affine_scev with
!use_overflow_semantics.

Note that for the original testcase 'i' may be negative or zero and thus 'd'
may be zero.  We do a bad analysis here because IVOPTs follows complete
peeling immediately...  but at least we have range information that looks
useful:

  <bb 16>:
  # RANGE [0, 10] NONZERO 15
  # d_26 = PHI <i_6(D)(15), d_13(17)>
  # RANGE [0, 9] NONZERO 15
  d_13 = d_26 + -1;
  _14 = A[d_26];
  # RANGE [0, 255] NONZERO 255
  _15 = (int) _14;
  # USE = nonlocal
  # CLB = nonlocal
  foo (_15);
  if (d_13 != 0)
    goto <bb 17>;
  else
    goto <bb 3>;

  <bb 17>:
  goto <bb 16>;

but unfortunately we expand the initial value of the IV for d all the way
to i_6(D) so we don't see that i_6(D) is constrained by the range for d_26.

So when we are in idx_find_step before we replace *idx with iv->base
we could check range-information on whether it wrapped.  Hmm, I think
we can't really compute this.  But we can transfer range information
(temporarily) from d_26 to iv->base i_6(D) and make use of that in
scev_probably_wraps_p.  There we currently compute whether
(unsigned) i_6(D) + 2147483648 (??) > 9 using fold_binary but with
range information [0, 10] it would compute as false (huh, so what is it
actually testing?!).  I think the computation of 'delta' should instead
be adjusted to use range information - max for negative step and min
for positive step.  Like the following:

Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c   (revision 220038)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c   (working copy)
@@ -3863,12 +3863,17 @@ scev_probably_wraps_p (tree base, tree s
      bound of the type, and verify that the loop is exited before this
      occurs.  */
   unsigned_type = unsigned_type_for (type);
-  base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, base);
-
   if (tree_int_cst_sign_bit (step))
     {
       tree extreme = fold_convert (unsigned_type,
                                   lower_bound_in_type (type, type));
+      wide_int min, max;
+      if (TREE_CODE (base) == SSA_NAME
+         && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (base))
+         && get_range_info (base, &min, &max) == VR_RANGE)
+       base = wide_int_to_tree (unsigned_type, max);
+      else
+       base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, base);
       delta = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, unsigned_type, base, extreme);
       step_abs = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, unsigned_type,
                              fold_convert (unsigned_type, step));
@@ -3877,6 +3882,13 @@ scev_probably_wraps_p (tree base, tree s
     {
       tree extreme = fold_convert (unsigned_type,
                                   upper_bound_in_type (type, type));
+      wide_int min, max;
+      if (TREE_CODE (base) == SSA_NAME
+         && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (base))
+         && get_range_info (base, &min, &max) == VR_RANGE)
+       base = wide_int_to_tree (unsigned_type, min);
+      else
+       base = fold_convert (unsigned_type, base);
       delta = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, unsigned_type, extreme, base);
       step_abs = fold_convert (unsigned_type, step);
     }

doesn't really help this case unless i_6(D) gets range-information transfered
temporarily as I said above, of course.