Hi!

The PHI argument expansion of INTEGER_CSTs where bitint_min_cst_precision
returns significantly smaller precision than the PHI result precision is
optimized by loading the much smaller constant (if any) from memory and
then either setting the remaining limbs to {} or calling memset with -1.
The case where no constant is loaded (i.e. c == NULL) is when the
INTEGER_CST is 0 or all_ones - in that case we can just set all the limbs
to {} or call memset with -1 on everything.
While for the all ones extension case that is what the code was already
doing, I missed one spot in the zero extension case, where constricting
the offset of the MEM_REF lhs of the = {} store it was using unconditionally
the byte size of c, which obviously doesn't work if c is NULL.  In that case
we want to use zero offset.

Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for
trunk?

2024-01-04  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

        PR tree-optimization/113120
        * gimple-lower-bitint.cc (gimple_lower_bitint): Fix handling of very
        large _BitInt zero INTEGER_CST PHI argument.

        * gcc.dg/bitint-62.c: New test.

--- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj       2024-01-03 11:51:27.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc  2024-01-03 13:53:30.699328045 +0100
@@ -6582,8 +6582,12 @@ gimple_lower_bitint (void)
                        = build_array_type_nelts (large_huge.m_limb_type,
                                                  nelts);
                      tree ptype = build_pointer_type (TREE_TYPE (v1));
-                     tree off = fold_convert (ptype,
-                                              TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (c)));
+                     tree off;
+                     if (c)
+                       off = fold_convert (ptype,
+                                           TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (c)));
+                     else
+                       off = build_zero_cst (ptype);
                      tree vd = build2 (MEM_REF, vtype,
                                        build_fold_addr_expr (v1), off);
                      g = gimple_build_assign (vd, build_zero_cst (vtype));
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-62.c.jj 2024-01-03 14:11:22.332301884 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-62.c    2024-01-03 14:10:58.219640178 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+/* PR tree-optimization/113120 */
+/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -O2" } */
+
+_BitInt(8) a;
+_BitInt(55) b;
+
+#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 401
+static __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
+foo (unsigned _BitInt(1) c, _BitInt(401) d)
+{
+  c /= d << b;
+  a = c;
+}
+
+void
+bar (void)
+{
+  foo (1, 4);
+}
+#endif
+
+#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 6928
+_BitInt(6928)
+baz (int x, _BitInt(6928) y)
+{
+  if (x)
+    return y;
+  else
+    return 0;
+}
+#endif

        Jakub

Reply via email to