On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 8:43 AM Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote:
>
>
> When comparing a signed narrow variable with a wider constant that has
> the bit corresponding to the variable's sign bit set, we would check
> that the constant is a sign-extension from that sign bit, and conclude
> that the compare fails if it isn't.
>
> When the signed variable is masked without getting the [lr]l_signbit
> variable set, or when the sign bit itself is masked out, we know the
> sign-extension bits from the extended variable are going to be zero,
> so the constant will only compare equal if it is a zero- rather than
> sign-extension from the narrow variable's precision, therefore, check
> that it satisfies this property, and yield a false compare result
> otherwise.

OK.

Thanks,
Richard.

>
> for  gcc/ChangeLog
>
>         PR tree-optimization/118572
>         * gimple-fold.cc (fold_truth_andor_for_ifcombine): Compare as
>         unsigned the variables whose extension bits are masked out.
>
> for  gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
>         PR tree-optimization/118572
>         * gcc.dg/field-merge-24.c: New.
> ---
>  gcc/gimple-fold.cc                    |   20 ++++++++++++++++--
>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/field-merge-24.c |   36 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/field-merge-24.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-fold.cc b/gcc/gimple-fold.cc
> index cd9d350349186..13541fe1ef749 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimple-fold.cc
> +++ b/gcc/gimple-fold.cc
> @@ -8552,12 +8552,21 @@ fold_truth_andor_for_ifcombine (enum tree_code code, 
> tree truth_type,
>      {
>        /* Before clipping upper bits of the right-hand operand of the compare,
>          check that they're sign or zero extensions, depending on how the
> -        left-hand operand would be extended.  */
> +        left-hand operand would be extended.  If it is unsigned, or if 
> there's
> +        a mask that zeroes out extension bits, whether because we've checked
> +        for upper bits in the mask and did not set ll_signbit, or because the
> +        sign bit itself is masked out, check that the right-hand operand is
> +        zero-extended.  */
>        bool l_non_ext_bits = false;
>        if (ll_bitsize < lr_bitsize)
>         {
>           wide_int zext = wi::zext (l_const, ll_bitsize);
> -         if ((ll_unsignedp ? zext : wi::sext (l_const, ll_bitsize)) == 
> l_const)
> +         if ((ll_unsignedp
> +              || (ll_and_mask.get_precision ()
> +                  && (!ll_signbit
> +                      || ((ll_and_mask & wi::mask (ll_bitsize - 1, true, 
> ll_bitsize))
> +                          == 0)))
> +              ? zext : wi::sext (l_const, ll_bitsize)) == l_const)
>             l_const = zext;
>           else
>             l_non_ext_bits = true;
> @@ -8583,7 +8592,12 @@ fold_truth_andor_for_ifcombine (enum tree_code code, 
> tree truth_type,
>        if (rl_bitsize < rr_bitsize)
>         {
>           wide_int zext = wi::zext (r_const, rl_bitsize);
> -         if ((rl_unsignedp ? zext : wi::sext (r_const, rl_bitsize)) == 
> r_const)
> +         if ((rl_unsignedp
> +              || (rl_and_mask.get_precision ()
> +                  && (!rl_signbit
> +                      || ((rl_and_mask & wi::mask (rl_bitsize - 1, true, 
> rl_bitsize))
> +                          == 0)))
> +              ? zext : wi::sext (r_const, rl_bitsize)) == r_const)
>             r_const = zext;
>           else
>             r_non_ext_bits = true;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/field-merge-24.c 
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/field-merge-24.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..ce5bce7d0b49c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/field-merge-24.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
> +
> +/* PR tree-optimization/118572 */
> +/* Check that signed compares with constants that seem signed in the other
> +   compare operand's width get treated as unsigned if its upper bits are 
> masked
> +   out.  */
> +
> +__attribute__((noipa))
> +int test(signed char c)
> +{
> +    return (((0x80 & (c&0xff)) != 0) && ((0xc0 & (c&0xff)) == 0x80));
> +}
> +
> +__attribute__((noipa))
> +int test2(signed char c)
> +{
> +    return (((-128 & (c&-1)) != 0) && ((-64 & (c&-1)) == -128));
> +}
> +
> +__attribute__((noipa))
> +int test3(signed char c)
> +{
> +    return (((0x80 & (c&-1)) != 0) && ((0x1248c0 & (c&-1)) == 0x124880));
> +}
> +
> +__attribute__((noipa))
> +int test4(signed char c)
> +{
> +    return (((0x400 & (c&-1)) == 0) && ((0x40 & (c&-1)) == 0x40));
> +}
> +
> +int main() {
> +  if (test(0x80) == 0 || test2(-128) == 0 || test3(-128) == 0 || test4(64) 
> == 0)
> +        __builtin_abort();
> +}
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
>    Free Software Activist                   GNU Toolchain Engineer
> More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity
> Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive

Reply via email to