This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: anti-ranges of signed variables

On 11/11/2016 12:12 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor <> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 10:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:

On November 11, 2016 6:34:37 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor <>

I noticed that variables of signed integer types that are constrained
to a specific subrange of values of the type like so:

     [-TYPE_MAX + N, N]

are reported by get_range_info as the anti-range

     [-TYPE_MAX, TYPE_MIN - 1]

for all positive N of the type regardless of the variable's actual
range.  Basically, such variables are treated the same as variables
of the same type that have no range info associated with them at all
(such as function arguments or global variables).

For example, while a signed char variable between -1 and 126 is
represented by

     VR_ANTI_RANGE [127, -2]

? I'd expect [-1, 126].  And certainly never range-min > range-max

Okay.  With this code:

  void f (void *d, const void *s, signed char i)
    if (i < -1 || 126 < i) i = -1;
    __builtin_memcpy (d, s, i);

I see the following in the output of -fdump-tree-vrp:

  prephitmp_11: ~[127, 18446744073709551614]

prephitmp_11 is an unsigned type as the last argument to memcpy is
size_t which is an unsigned type. We had this discussion in bugzilla
about this same thing when we were talking about pointer plus.

Right.  But that wasn't my question (the reported range above
correctly reflects the variable's range in the code).

My question is: why is the range for i in

  if (i < -3 || 124 < i) i = -1;

the same as in

  if (i < -4 || 123 < i) i = -1;

In both cases it's represented as

  prephitmp_12: ~[128, 18446744073709551487]

which is unrelated to i's actual range.  This seems to be true
for all signed types in the range [-TYPE_MAX + N, N].



  # prephitmp_11 = PHI <_12(3), 18446744073709551615(2)>
  __builtin_memcpy (d_8(D), s_9(D), prephitmp_11);

and this in GDB:

  Breakpoint 1, determine_block_size (len=0x7ffff0daacf0,
  2913        else if (range_type == VR_ANTI_RANGE)
  (gdb) s
  2916            if (min == 0)
  (gdb) p range_type
  (gdb) p min
  $2 = {<wide_int_storage> = {val = {127, 18136432, 140737235550272}, len =
      precision = 64}, static is_sign_extended = <optimized out>}
  (gdb) p max
  $3 = {<wide_int_storage> = {val = {-2, 18136478, 140737235550272}, len =
      precision = 64}, static is_sign_extended = <optimized out>}

as one would expect, when the same variable is between -4 and 123
it's represented by

     VR_ANTI_RANGE [128, -129]

rather than the expected

     VR_ANTI_RANGE [124, -5]

I'd like to know if this is a deliberate feature or a bug.

It must be a misinterpretation on your side.  Or an implementation bug.

Given the above, which does it look like it is?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]