[ping] Fix PR debug/66728

Richard Biener richard.guenther@gmail.com
Thu Nov 5 12:32:00 GMT 2015


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 12:50 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes:
>>> Index: dwarf2out.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- dwarf2out.c      (revision 229720)
>>> +++ dwarf2out.c      (working copy)
>>> @@ -15593,8 +15593,13 @@
>>>       return true;
>>>
>>>     case CONST_WIDE_INT:
>>> -      add_AT_wide (die, DW_AT_const_value,
>>> -               std::make_pair (rtl, GET_MODE (rtl)));
>>> +      {
>>> +    wide_int w1 = std::make_pair (rtl, MAX_MODE_INT);
>>> +    int prec = MIN (wi::min_precision (w1, UNSIGNED),
>>> +                    (unsigned int)CONST_WIDE_INT_NUNITS (rtl) * HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT);
>>> +    wide_int w = wide_int::from (w1, prec, UNSIGNED);
>>> +    add_AT_wide (die, DW_AT_const_value, w);
>>> +      }
>>>       return true;
>>>
>>>     case CONST_DOUBLE:
>>
>> Setting the precision based on CONST_WIDE_INT_NUNITS means that
>> we might end up with two different precisions for two values of
>> the same variable.  E.g. for a 192-bit type, 1<<64 would be given
>> a precision of 128 (because it needs two HWIs to store) but 1<<128
>> would be given a precision of 192 (because it needs three HWIs to store).
>> We could then abort when comparing them for equality, since equality
>> needs both integers to have the same precision.  E.g. from same_dw_val_p:
>>
>>    case dw_val_class_wide_int:
>>      return *v1->v.val_wide == *v2->v.val_wide;
>
> Yeah, seems like we should have a v1.prec == v2.prec && on that.  The bad news, there are four of them that are like this.  The good news, 3 of them are location operands, and I don’t think they can hit for a very long time.  I think this is an oversight from the double_int version of the code where we just check the 128 bits for equality.  We can see if Richard wants to weigh in.  I think I’d just pre-approve the change, though, I think a helper to perform mixed equality testing would be the way to go as there are 4 of them, and I pretty sure they should all use the mixed version.  Though, maybe the location list versions are never mixed.  If they aren’t, then there is only 1 client, so, I’d just do the precision test inline.  Anyone able to comment on the location list aspect of this?

No idea on location lists but maybe this means we should just use the
maximum supported integer mode for CONST_WIDE_INTs?



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list