https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104522

--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2801f23fb82a5ef51c8b460a500786797943e1e9

commit r12-7240-g2801f23fb82a5ef51c8b460a500786797943e1e9
Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 15 12:11:31 2022 +0100

    fold, simplify-rtx: Punt on non-representable floating point constants
[PR104522]

    For IBM double double I've added in PR95450 and PR99648 verification that
    when we at the tree/GIMPLE or RTL level interpret target bytes as a
REAL_CST
    or CONST_DOUBLE constant, we try to encode it back to target bytes and
    verify it is the same.
    This is because our real.c support isn't able to represent all valid values
    of IBM double double which has variable precision.
    In PR104522, it has been noted that we have similar problem with the
    Intel/Motorola extended XFmode formats, our internal representation isn't
    able to record pseudo denormals, pseudo infinities, pseudo NaNs and
unnormal
    values.
    So, the following patch is an attempt to extend that verification to all
    floats.
    Unfortunately, it wasn't that straightforward, because the
    __builtin_clear_padding code exactly for the XFmode long doubles needs to
    discover what bits are padding and does that by interpreting memory of
    all 1s.  That is actually a valid supported value, a qNaN with negative
    sign with all mantissa bits set, but the verification includes also the
    padding bits (exactly what __builtin_clear_padding wants to figure out)
    and so fails the comparison check and so we ICE.
    The patch fixes that case by moving that verification from
    native_interpret_real to its caller, so that clear_padding_type can
    call native_interpret_real and avoid that extra check.

    With this, the only thing that regresses in the testsuite is
    +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/auto-init-4.c scan-assembler-times long\\t-16843010
5
    because it decides to use a pattern that has non-zero bits in the padding
    bits of the long double, so the simplify-rtx.cc change prevents folding
    a SUBREG into a constant.  We emit (the testcase is -O0 but we emit worse
    code at all opt levels) something like:
            movabsq $-72340172838076674, %rax
            movabsq $-72340172838076674, %rdx
            movq    %rax, -48(%rbp)
            movq    %rdx, -40(%rbp)
            fldt    -48(%rbp)
            fstpt   -32(%rbp)
    instead of
            fldt    .LC2(%rip)
            fstpt   -32(%rbp)
    ...
    .LC2:
            .long   -16843010
            .long   -16843010
            .long   65278
            .long   0
    Note, neither of those sequences actually stores the padding bits, fstpt
    simply doesn't touch them.
    For vars with clear_padding_real_needs_padding_p types that are allocated
    to memory at expansion time, I'd say much better would be to do the stores
    using integral modes rather than XFmode, so do that:
            movabsq $-72340172838076674, %rax
            movq    %rax, -32(%rbp)
            movq    %rax, -24(%rbp)
    directly.  That is the only way to ensure the padding bits are initialized
    (or expand __builtin_clear_padding, but then you initialize separately the
    value bits and padding bits).

    2022-02-15  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

            PR middle-end/104522
            * fold-const.h (native_interpret_real): Declare.
            * fold-const.cc (native_interpret_real): No longer static.  Don't
            perform MODE_COMPOSITE_P verification here.
            (native_interpret_expr) <case REAL_TYPE>: But perform it here
instead
            for all modes.
            * gimple-fold.cc (clear_padding_type): Call native_interpret_real
            instead of native_interpret_expr.
            * simplify-rtx.cc (simplify_immed_subreg): Perform the
native_encode_rtx
            and comparison verification for all FLOAT_MODE_P modes, not just
            MODE_COMPOSITE_P.

            * gcc.dg/pr104522.c: New test.

Reply via email to