https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #23 from Dominik Vogt <vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com> ---
Regarding the ARM patch:
+ {
+ if (!IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]) + INTVAL (operands[3]),
+ 1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode) - 1))
+ FAIL;
+ }
Isn't this patch too simple? On s390x we get "pos" -N (operand 3) with "size"
M, so the correct check should be:
if (! IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[3]), 0, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode) - 1)
|| IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[3]) + INTVAL (operands[2]),
1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode)))
FAIL;
It's just luck that the test program does not generate something like
(zero_extract (...) (-1) (16))
Which can only be caught by testing "pos" individually.
--
Also, I don't understand why the valid range is "1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode) -
1", shouldn't it be "1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode)" without the "- 1"?
