This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: help for arm avr bfin cris frv h8300 m68k mcore mmix pdp11 rs6000 sh vax
- From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, richard dot earnshaw at arm dot com, hp at axis dot com, aldyh at redhat dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, law at redhat dot com, nickc at redhat dot com, kazu at codesourcery dot com, ni1d at arrl dot net, kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org, matt at 3am-software dot com
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:06:41 +0100
- Subject: Re: help for arm avr bfin cris frv h8300 m68k mcore mmix pdp11 rs6000 sh vax
- References: <f865508f0903130434i795ab1ck7c6d4e840951279@mail.gmail.com> <49BA5C4A.7030609@t-online.de> <84fc9c000903130716p74970b65sb071ad2ed090ee9d@mail.gmail.com> <49BA76B1.3020001@gnu.org> <84fc9c000903130813h226d34a4g64541740682c031f@mail.gmail.com>
>>> Hm. In fold-const.c we try to make sure to produce the same result
>>> as the target would for constant-folding shifts. Thus, Paolo, I think
>>> what fold-const.c does is what we should assume for
>>> !SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED. No?
>> Unfortunately it is not so simple. fold-const.c is actually wrong, as
>> witnessed by this program
>>
>> static inline int f (int s) { return 2 << s; }
>> int main () { printf ("%d\n", f(33)); }
>>
>> which prints 4 at -O0 and 0 at -O2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> But this is because i?86 doesn't define SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED, no?
Yes, so fold-const.c is *not* modeling the target in this case.
But on the other hand, this means we can get by with documenting the
effect of a conservative truncation mask: no wrong code bugs, just
differences between optimization levels for undefined programs. I'll
check that the optimizations done based on the truncation mask are all
conservative or can be made so.
So, I'd still need the information for arm and m68k, because that
information is about the bitfield instructions. For rs6000 it would be
nice to see what they do for 64-bits (for 32-bit I know that PowerPCs
truncate to 6 bits, not 5). But for the other architectures, we can be
conservative.
Paolo