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