Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> writes: > Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> writes: >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> writes: >>>> On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>>>> Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> writes: >>>>>> Hi folks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Calling print_hex() on a widest_int with the most significant bit turned >>>>>> on can lead to a leading zero being printed (0x0ffff....). This produces >>>>>> confusing dumps to say the least, especially when you incorrectly assume >>>>>> an integer is NOT signed :). >>>>> That's the intended behaviour though. wide_int-based types only use as >>>>> many HWIs as they need to store their current value, with any other bits >>>>> in the value being a sign extension of the top bit. So if the most >>>>> significant HWI in a widest_int is zero, that HWI is there to say that >>>>> the previous HWI should be zero- rather than sign-extended. >>>>> >>>>> So: >>>>> >>>>> 0x0ffffffff -> (1 << 32) - 1 to infinite precision >>>>> (i.e. a positive value) >>>>> 0xffffffff -> -1 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Richard >>>> >>>> I for one find this very confusing. If I have a 128 bit value, I don't >>>> expect to see a 132 bits. And there are enough 0's its not obvious when >>>> I look. >>> >>> But Aldy was talking about widest_int, which is wider than 128 bits. >>> It's an approximation of infinite precision. >> >> IMO, we should document this leading zero in print_hex, as it's not >> inherently obvious. >> >> But yes, I was talking about widest_int. I should explain what I am >> trying to accomplish, since perhaps there is a better way. >> >> I am printing a a wide_int (bounds[i] below), but I really don't want >> to print the sign extension nonsense, since it's a detail of the >> underlying representation. > > Ah! OK. Yeah, I agree it doesn't make sense to print sign-extension > bits above the precision. I think it'd work if print_hex used > extract_uhwi insteead of elt, which would also remove the need > to handle "negative" numbers specially. I'll try that tomorrow.
How about this? Not tested much beyond the selftests themselves. Thanks, Richard gcc/ * wide-int-print.cc (print_hex): Loop based on extract_uhwi. Don't print any bits outside the precision of the value. * wide-int.cc (test_printing): Add some new tests. Index: gcc/wide-int-print.cc =================================================================== --- gcc/wide-int-print.cc 2017-07-02 10:05:20.997439436 +0100 +++ gcc/wide-int-print.cc 2017-10-19 21:20:05.138500726 +0100 @@ -103,30 +103,28 @@ print_decu (const wide_int_ref &wi, FILE } void -print_hex (const wide_int_ref &wi, char *buf) +print_hex (const wide_int_ref &val, char *buf) { - int i = wi.get_len (); - - if (wi == 0) + if (val == 0) buf += sprintf (buf, "0x0"); else { - if (wi::neg_p (wi)) + buf += sprintf (buf, "0x"); + int start = ROUND_DOWN (val.get_precision (), HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); + int width = val.get_precision () - start; + bool first_p = true; + for (int i = start; i >= 0; i -= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) { - int j; - /* If the number is negative, we may need to pad value with - 0xFFF... because the leading elements may be missing and - we do not print a '-' with hex. */ - buf += sprintf (buf, "0x"); - for (j = BLOCKS_NEEDED (wi.get_precision ()); j > i; j--) - buf += sprintf (buf, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_PADDED_HEX, HOST_WIDE_INT_M1); - + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT uhwi = wi::extract_uhwi (val, i, width); + if (!first_p) + buf += sprintf (buf, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_PADDED_HEX, uhwi); + else if (uhwi != 0) + { + buf += sprintf (buf, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX_PURE, uhwi); + first_p = false; + } + width = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT; } - else - buf += sprintf (buf, "0x" HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX_PURE, wi.elt (--i)); - - while (--i >= 0) - buf += sprintf (buf, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_PADDED_HEX, wi.elt (i)); } } Index: gcc/wide-int.cc =================================================================== --- gcc/wide-int.cc 2017-10-19 21:19:47.100454414 +0100 +++ gcc/wide-int.cc 2017-10-19 21:20:05.138500726 +0100 @@ -2253,6 +2253,17 @@ test_printing () VALUE_TYPE a = from_int<VALUE_TYPE> (42); assert_deceq ("42", a, SIGNED); assert_hexeq ("0x2a", a); + assert_hexeq ("0x1fffffffffffffffff", wi::shwi (-1, 69)); + assert_hexeq ("0xffffffffffffffff", wi::mask (64, false, 69)); + assert_hexeq ("0xffffffffffffffff", wi::mask <widest_int> (64, false)); + if (WIDE_INT_MAX_PRECISION > 128) + { + assert_hexeq ("0x20000000000000000fffffffffffffffe", + wi::lshift (1, 129) + wi::lshift (1, 64) - 2); + assert_hexeq ("0x200000000000004000123456789abcdef", + wi::lshift (1, 129) + wi::lshift (1, 74) + + wi::lshift (0x1234567, 32) + 0x89abcdef); + } } /* Verify that various operations work correctly for VALUE_TYPE,