Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> writes:
> @@ -2036,11 +2075,20 @@ wi::lrshift_large (HOST_WIDE_INT *val, c
> unsigned int xlen, unsigned int xprecision,
> unsigned int precision, unsigned int shift)
> {
> - unsigned int len = rshift_large_common (val, xval, xlen, xprecision,
> shift);
> + /* Work out how many blocks are needed to store the significant bits
> + (excluding the upper zeros or signs). */
> + unsigned int blocks_needed = BLOCKS_NEEDED (xprecision - shift);
> + unsigned int len = blocks_needed;
> + if (UNLIKELY (len > WIDE_INT_MAX_INL_ELTS)
> + && len > xlen
> + && xval[xlen - 1] >= 0)
> + len = xlen;
I think here too it would be worth dropping the:
UNLIKELY (len > WIDE_INT_MAX_INL_ELTS)
part of the condition, since presumably the change should be safe
regardless of that.
> +
> + rshift_large_common (val, xval, xlen, shift, len);
>
> /* The value we just created has precision XPRECISION - SHIFT.
> Zero-extend it to wider precisions. */
> - if (precision > xprecision - shift)
> + if (precision > xprecision - shift && len == blocks_needed)
> {
> unsigned int small_prec = (xprecision - shift) %
> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT;
> if (small_prec)
> @@ -2063,11 +2111,18 @@ wi::arshift_large (HOST_WIDE_INT *val, c
> unsigned int xlen, unsigned int xprecision,
> unsigned int precision, unsigned int shift)
> {
> - unsigned int len = rshift_large_common (val, xval, xlen, xprecision,
> shift);
> + /* Work out how many blocks are needed to store the significant bits
> + (excluding the upper zeros or signs). */
> + unsigned int blocks_needed = BLOCKS_NEEDED (xprecision - shift);
> + unsigned int len = blocks_needed;
> + if (UNLIKELY (len > WIDE_INT_MAX_INL_ELTS) && len > xlen)
> + len = xlen;
> +
Same here.
OK for thw wide-int parts with those changes.
Thanks,
Richard