https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118915

--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<ja...@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9005efee26bf4a63a86953aeb6c0b93d7ceb2f0a

commit r13-9591-g9005efee26bf4a63a86953aeb6c0b93d7ceb2f0a
Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Feb 24 12:19:16 2025 +0100

    reassoc: Fix up optimize_range_tests_to_bit_test [PR118915]

    The following testcase is miscompiled due to a bug in
    optimize_range_tests_to_bit_test.  It is trying to optimize
    check for a in [-34,-34] or [-26,-26] or [-6,-6] or [-4,inf] ranges.
    Another reassoc optimization folds the the test for the first
    two ranges into (a + 34U) & ~8U in [0U,0U] range, and extract_bit_test_mask
    actually has code to virtually undo it and treat that again as test
    for a being -34 or -26.  The problem is that
optimize_range_tests_to_bit_test
    remembers in the type variable TREE_TYPE (ranges[i].exp); from the first
    range.  If extract_bit_test_mask doesn't do that virtual undoing of the
    BIT_AND_EXPR handling, that is just fine, the returned exp is
ranges[i].exp.
    But if the first range is BIT_AND_EXPR, the type could be different, the
    BIT_AND_EXPR form has the optional cast to corresponding unsigned type
    in order to avoid introducing UB.  Now, type was used to fill in the
    max value if ranges[j].high was missing in subsequently tested range,
    and so in this particular testcase the [-4,inf] range which was
    signed int and so [-4,INT_MAX] was treated as [-4,UINT_MAX] instead.
    And we were subtracting values of 2 different types and trying to make
    sense out of that.

    The following patch fixes this by using the type of the low bound
    (which is always non-NULL) for the max value of the high bound instead.

    2025-02-24  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

            PR tree-optimization/118915
            * tree-ssa-reassoc.cc (optimize_range_tests_to_bit_test): For
            highj == NULL_TREE use TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TREE_TYPE (lowj)) rather
            than TYPE_MAX_VALUE (type).

            * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr118915.c: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 5806279610783805286ebcd0af3b455602a3a8f9)

Reply via email to