Hi!
Currently, bitint_large_huge::lower_mul_overflow uses cnt 1 only if
startlimb == endlimb and in that case doesn't use a loop and handles
everything in a special if:
unsigned cnt;
bool use_loop = false;
if (startlimb == endlimb)
cnt = 1;
else if (startlimb + 1 == endlimb)
cnt = 2;
else if ((end % limb_prec) == 0)
{
cnt = 2;
use_loop = true;
}
else
{
cnt = 3;
use_loop = startlimb + 2 < endlimb;
}
if (cnt == 1)
{
...
}
else
The loop handling for the loop exit condition wants to compare if the
incremented index is equal to endlimb, but that is correct only if
end is not divisible by limb_prec and there will be a straight line
check after the loop as well for the most significant limb. The code
used endlimb + (cnt == 1) for that, but cnt == 1 is never true here,
because cnt is either 2 or 3, so the right check is (cnt == 2).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2024-02-22 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/114038
* gimple-lower-bitint.cc (bitint_large_huge::lower_mul_overflow): Fix
loop exit condition if end is divisible by limb_prec.
* gcc.dg/torture/bitint-59.c: New test.
--- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj 2024-02-15 09:52:40.999145971 +0100
+++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc 2024-02-21 20:04:27.590388930 +0100
@@ -4497,7 +4497,7 @@ bitint_large_huge::lower_mul_overflow (t
size_one_node);
insert_before (g);
g = gimple_build_cond (NE_EXPR, idx_next,
- size_int (endlimb + (cnt == 1)),
+ size_int (endlimb + (cnt == 2)),
NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
insert_before (g);
edge true_edge, false_edge;
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/bitint-59.c.jj 2024-02-21 20:07:11.028142323
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/bitint-59.c 2024-02-21 20:07:57.854498649
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+/* PR tree-optimization/114038 */
+/* { dg-do run { target bitint } } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -pedantic-errors" } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! run_expensive_tests } { "*" } { "-O0" "-O2" } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! run_expensive_tests } { "-flto" } { "" } } */
+
+#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 129
+int
+foo (unsigned _BitInt(63) x, unsigned _BitInt(129) y)
+{
+ return __builtin_mul_overflow_p (y, x, 0);
+}
+#endif
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 129
+ if (!foo (90, 0x80000000000000000000000000000000uwb))
+ __builtin_abort ();
+#endif
+}
Jakub
