This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: Fix wrong-code bug caused by combine_simplify_rtx()


Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net> writes:
>> Anyway, combine misoptimises:
>>
>>    int s;
>>    ...
>>    (signed char) (s - 100) - 5
>>
>> rewriting it into:
>>
>>    (plus:SI (sign_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI s) 0))
>>             (const_int -105))
>
> The following would have been optimally correct:
>
>     (sign_ext:QI (plus:QI (subreg:QI (reg:SI s) 0)
>                           (const_int -105)))

No, it's not correct.  Consider s == -28:

    (signed char) (s - 100) - 5 == (signed char) -128 - 5 == -133

Your version would give 123.

Richard


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