This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: switch statement type incompatibilities ?


On 10/29/18 1:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 29, 2018 6:20:25 PM GMT+01:00, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
What is valid in a switch statement for type compatibility?

  I would have expected it to follow what appears to be the gimple
"standard"  of allowing types that pass the
"useless_type_convserion_p()"  test.

I am doing some switch analysis and an triggering a failure in ADA when

the gimple_switch_index() is a signed 64 bit value and the case labels
are only 32 bit integers.  I would have expected that these needed to
be
the same precision?   I don't seem to get this failure anywhere else.
They should be the same type (types_ compatible_p), the same conatraint as operands of comparisons. IIRC we have some checking somewhere - eventually it just checks whether the constants fit in the index type.
Fails that test too.

(gdb) p types_compatible_p ($19, $16->typed.type)
$26 = false
(gdb) p types_compatible_p ($16->typed.type, $19)
$27 = false


now clearly the 32 bit index fit within the 64 bit index, and the default labels handles the rest..   but I'll look and see if I can find why this isnt triggering some checking code somewhere...

Andrew
(gdb) p print_gimple_stmt (stderr, sw, 0, 0)

switch (_22) <default: <L9> [67.00%], case 1: <L6> [33.00%]>


(gdb) p gimple_switch_index (sw)
$16 = (tree_node *) 0x7fffee3593f0
(gdb) p print_generic_expr (stderr, $16, 0)
_22
(gdb) p print_generic_expr (stderr, $16->typed.type, 0)
SIGNED_64                                                   << signed
64
bit index

low is the value of CASE_LOW()

(gdb) p print_generic_expr (stderr, low, 0)
1
(gdb) p low->typed.type
$19 = (tree) 0x7fffefacf5e8
(gdb) p print_generic_expr (stderr, $19, 0)
integer
(gdb) p low->typed.type->type_common.precision
$22 = 32 <<< 32 bit case label
(gdb) p type->type_common.precision
$23 = 64

(gdb) p useless_type_conversion_p ($16->typed.type, $19)
$24 = false
(gdb) p useless_type_conversion_p ($19, $16->typed.type)
$25 = false


Is this valid?   If so I'll do the promotion myself  but this fails
the
"is_useless_type_conversion_p ()"   test....

Andrew


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