> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 4:42 PM
> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; Richard Biener
> <rguent...@suse.de>; Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com>
> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; nd
> <n...@arm.com>; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
> by using new optabs [PR108583]
>
>
> On 2/15/23 13:42, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >
> > On 2/15/23 12:50, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/15/23 12:13, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >>>> On 2/15/23 07:51, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >> void
> >> operator_plus::wi_fold (irange &r, tree type,
> >> const wide_int &lh_lb, const wide_int &lh_ub,
> >> const wide_int &rh_lb, const wide_int &rh_ub)
> >> const {
> >> wi::overflow_type ov_lb, ov_ub;
> >> signop s = TYPE_SIGN (type);
> >>
> >> // Do whatever wideint magic is required to do this adds in higher
> >> precision
> >> wide_int new_lb = wi::add (lh_lb, rh_lb, s, &ov_lb);
> >> wide_int new_ub = wi::add (lh_ub, rh_ub, s, &ov_ub);
> >>
> >> r = int_range<2> (type, new_lb, new_ub); }
> >>
> >>
> >> The operator needs to be registered, I've attached the skeleton for
> >> it. you should just have to finish implementing wi_fold().
> >>
> >> in theory :-)
> >>
> > You also mentioned earlier that some were tree codes, some were
> > internal function calls? We have some initial support for built in
> > functions, but I am not familiar with all the various forms they can
> > take. We currently support CFN_ functions in
> >
> > gimple-range-op.cc, gimple_range_op_handler::maybe_builtin_call ()
> >
> > Basically this is part of a "gimple_range_op_handler" wrapper for
> > range-ops which can provide a range-ops class for stmts that don't map
> > to a binary or unary form.. such as built in functions.
> >
> > If you get to the point where you need this for a builtin function, I
> > can help you through that too. Although someone may have to also help
> > me through what differentiates the different kinds of internal
> > function :-) I presume they are all similar in some way.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> Oh yeah, and in case you haven't figured it out on your own, you'll have
> to remove WIDEN_MULT_EXPR from the range-ops init table. This
> non-standard mechanism only gets checked if there is no standard
> range-op table entry for the tree code :-P
>
Hmm it looks like it'll work, but it keeps segfaulting in:
bool
range_op_handler::fold_range (vrange &r, tree type,
const vrange &lh,
const vrange &rh,
relation_trio rel) const
{
gcc_checking_assert (m_valid);
if (m_int)
return m_int->fold_range (as_a <irange> (r), type,
as_a <irange> (lh),
as_a <irange> (rh), rel);
while trying to call fold_range.
But m_int is set to the right instance. Probably something I'm missing,
I'll double check it all.
Cheers,
Tamar
> Andrew
>
> Andrew
