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: [PATCH] Avoid introducing TREE_OVERFLOWs in (T)(x&cst) -> (T)x& (T)cst optimization (PR middle-end/19857)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2005-02-15  Jakub Jelinek  <>
> 	PR middle-end/19857
> 	* fold-const.c (fold): Don't optimize (T)(x & cst) to
> 	(T)x & (T)cst if (T)cst overflows.
> 	* convert.c (convert_to_integer) <case POINTER_TYPE>: Pass
> 	TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) as type_for_size's UNSIGNEDP argument.
> 	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20050215-1.c: New test.
> 	* gcc.c-torture/execute/20050215-1.c: New test.

This is Ok for mainline.   Thanks.

However, a slight improvement on your fold change would be:

>  	  if (change)
> +	    {
              tem = build_int_cst_wide (type, TREE_INT_CST_LOW (and1),
                                        TREE_INT_CST_HIGH (and1));
              tem = force_fit_type (tem, 0, false, false);
> +	      return fold (build2 (BIT_AND_EXPR, type,
> +				   fold_convert (type, and0), tem));
> +	    }
>  	}

This allows us to force conversion of integer constants without worrying
about overflow.  The obvious benefit is that we can continue to optimize
the testcase in the PR.

If bootstrap and regression test of the above change suceeds, consider
the modified patch pre-approved.

Thanks in advance,


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