https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113003
--- Comment #3 from GCC 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:d50d3d0a688e8dac31b307b3aad3fbc99283ebc4 commit r14-6579-gd50d3d0a688e8dac31b307b3aad3fbc99283ebc4 Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> Date: Fri Dec 15 10:10:58 2023 +0100 lower-bitint: Fix .{ADD,SUB,MUL}_OVERFLOW with _BitInt large/huge INTEGER_CST arguments [PR113003] As shown in the testcase, .{ADD,SUB,MUL}_OVERFLOW calls are another exception to the middle/large/huge _BitInt discovery through SSA_NAMEs next to stores of INTEGER_CSTs to memory and their conversions to floating point. The calls can have normal COMPLEX_TYPE with INTEGER_TYPE elts return type (or BITINT_TYPE with small precision) and one of the arguments can be SSA_NAME with an INTEGER_TYPE or small BITINT_TYPE as well; still, when there is an INTEGER_CST argument with large/huge BITINT_TYPE, we need to lower it that way. 2023-12-15 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR tree-optimization/113003 * gimple-lower-bitint.cc (arith_overflow_arg_kind): New function. (gimple_lower_bitint): Use it to catch .{ADD,SUB,MUL}_OVERFLOW calls with large/huge INTEGER_CST arguments. * gcc.dg/bitint-54.c: New test.
