Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:50 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/2018 05:50 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The reason for this patch are the changes showcased in tree-vrp.c.
>> >> Basically I'd like to discourage rolling our own overflow and underflow
>> >> calculation when doing wide int arithmetic. We should have a
>> >> centralized place for this, that is-- in the wide int code itself ;-).
>> >>
>> >> The only cases I care about are plus/minus, which I have implemented,
>> >> but we also get division for free, since AFAICT, division can only
>> >> positive overflow:
>> >>
>> >> -MIN / -1 => +OVERFLOW
>> >>
>> >> Multiplication OTOH, can underflow, but I've not implemented it because
>> >> we have no uses for it. I have added a note in the code explaining this.
>> >>
>> >> Originally I tried to only change plus/minus, but that made code that
>> >> dealt with plus/minus in addition to div or mult a lot uglier. You'd
>> >> have to special case "int overflow_for_add_stuff" and "bool
>> >> overflow_for_everything_else". Changing everything to int, makes things
>> >> consistent.
>> >>
>> >> Note: I have left poly-int as is, with its concept of yes/no for
>> >> overflow. I can adapt this as well if desired.
>> >>
>> >> Tested on x86-64 Linux.
>> >>
>> >> OK for trunk?
>> >
>> > looks all straight-forward but the following:
>> >
>> > else if (op1)
>> > {
>> > if (minus_p)
>> > - {
>> > - wi = -wi::to_wide (op1);
>> > -
>> > - /* Check for overflow. */
>> > - if (sgn == SIGNED
>> > - && wi::neg_p (wi::to_wide (op1))
>> > - && wi::neg_p (wi))
>> > - ovf = 1;
>> > - else if (sgn == UNSIGNED && wi::to_wide (op1) != 0)
>> > - ovf = -1;
>> > - }
>> > + wi = wi::neg (wi::to_wide (op1));
>> > else
>> > wi = wi::to_wide (op1);
>> >
>> > you fail to handle - -INT_MIN.
>>
>> Woah, very good catch. I previously had this implemented as wi::sub(0,
>> op1, &ovf) which was calculating overflow correctly but when I
>> implemented the overflow type in wi::neg I missed this. Thanks.
>>
>> >
>> > Given the fact that for multiplication (or others, didn't look too close)
>> > you didn't implement the direction indicator I wonder if it would be more
>> > appropriate to do
>> >
>> > enum ovfl { OVFL_NONE = 0, OVFL_UNDERFLOW = -1, OVFL_OVERFLOW = 1,
>> > OVFL_UNKNOWN = 2 };
>> >
>> > and tell us the "truth" here?
>>
>> Excellent idea...though it came with lots of typing :). Fixed.
>>
>> BTW, if I understand correctly, I've implemented the overflow types
>> correctly for everything but multiplication (which we have no users for
>> and I return OVF_UNKNOWN). I have indicated this in comments. Also,
>> for division I did nothing special, as we can only +OVERFLOW.
>>
>> >
>> > Hopefully if (overflow) will still work with that.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>> >
>> > Otherwise can you please add a toplevel comment to wide-int.h as to what
>> > the
>> > overflow result semantically is for a) SIGNED and b) UNSIGNED operations?
>>
>> Done. Let me know if the current comment is what you had in mind.
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>
> I'd move accumulate_overflow to wi::, it looks generally useful. That
> function
> misses to handle the !suboverflow && overflow case optimally.
>
> I see that poly-int choses to accumulate overflow (callers need to
> initialize it) while wide_int chooses not to accumulate... to bad
> this is inconsistent. Richard?
poly-int needs to accumulate internally when handling multiple coefficients,
but the external interface is the same as for wi:: (no caller initialisation).
Richard
