On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> writes:
>> This PR was due to code in which -(int) foo was suposed to be sign-extended,
>> but was being ORed with an unsigned int and so ended up being zero-extended.
>> Fixed by using the proper-width type.
>
> As Kostya rightly said in the PR, this should have had a testcase too.
>
> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. It failed before the patch on x86_64,
> passes after it, and is skipped for -m32. OK to install?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> PR tree-optimization/61095
> * gcc.dg/torture/pr61095.c: New test.
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr61095.c
> ===================================================================
> --- /dev/null 2014-05-03 11:58:38.033951363 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr61095.c 2014-05-08 08:46:01.203827892
> +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
> +
> +extern void __attribute__ ((noreturn)) abort (void);
> +
> +int __attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
> +foo (unsigned long addr) {
> + unsigned long *p = (unsigned long*)((addr & 0xffff83fffffffff8UL) * 4);
> + unsigned long xxx = (unsigned long)(p + 1);
> + return xxx >= 0x3c000000000UL;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +main (void)
> +{
> + if (foo (0))
> + abort ();
> + if (foo (0x7c0000000000UL))
> + abort ();
> + if (!foo (0xfc0000000000UL))
> + abort ();
> + return 0;
> +}
