Stamatis Markianos-Wright <[email protected]> writes:
>> One of the main reasons for reading the arm bits was to try to answer
>> the question: if we switch to a downcounting loop with a GE condition,
>> how do we make sure that the start value is not a large unsigned
>> number that is interpreted as negative by GE? E.g. if the loop
>> originally counted up in steps of N and used an LTU condition,
>> it could stop at a value in the range [INT_MAX + 1, UINT_MAX].
>> But the loop might never iterate if we start counting down from
>> most values in that range.
>>
>> Does the patch handle that?
>
> So AFAICT this is actually handled in the generic code in `doloop_valid_p`:
>
> This kind of loops fail because of they are "desc->infinite", then no
> loop-doloop conversion is attempted at all (even for standard dls/le loops)
>
> Thanks to that check I haven't been able to trigger anything like the
> behaviour you describe, do you think the doloop_valid_p checks are
> robust enough?
The loops I was thinking of are provably not infinite though. E.g.:
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < UINT_MAX - 100; ++i)
...
is known to terminate. And doloop conversion is safe with the normal
count-down-by-1 approach, so I don't think current code would need
to reject it. I.e. a conversion to:
unsigned int i = UINT_MAX - 101;
do
...
while (--i != ~0U);
would be safe, but a conversion to:
int i = UINT_MAX - 101;
do
...
while ((i -= step, i > 0));
wouldn't, because the loop body would only be executed once.
I'm only going off the name "infinite" though :) It's possible that
it has more connotations than that.
Thanks,
Richard
