On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: > yes, i had caught that when i merged it in with the patches that used it, is > it ok aside from that?
Yes. Thanks, Richard. > kenny > > On 04/03/2013 05:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> this time for sure. >> >> Almost ... >> >> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c >> index 330b42c..92d54a3 100644 >> --- a/gcc/hwint.c >> +++ b/gcc/hwint.c >> @@ -204,3 +204,35 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, HOST_WIDE_INT >> b) >> { >> return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); >> } >> + >> +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING >> >> #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >> >> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >> + >> +HOST_WIDE_INT >> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >> +{ >> + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); >> + >> >> Ok with that change. (maybe catch one random use of the pattern >> in code and use the helpers - that would have catched this issue) >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >> >> >>> kenny >>> >>> On 04/02/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck >>>> <zad...@naturalbridge.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Richard, >>>>> >>>>> did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on >>>>> x86-64. >>>>> ok to commit? >>>> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c >>>> index 330b42c..7e5b85c 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/hwint.c >>>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.c >>>> @@ -204,3 +204,33 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, >>>> HOST_WIDE_INT >>>> b) >>>> { >>>> return mul_hwi (abs_hwi (a) / gcd (a, b), abs_hwi (b)); >>>> } >>>> + >>>> +#ifndef ENABLE_CHECKING >>>> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >>>> + >>>> +HOST_WIDE_INT >>>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>>> >>>> this should go to hwint.h, and without the masking of prec. >>>> while ... >>>> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/hwint.h b/gcc/hwint.h >>>> index da62fad..9dddf05 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/hwint.h >>>> +++ b/gcc/hwint.h >>>> @@ -276,4 +316,42 @@ extern HOST_WIDE_INT pos_mul_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, >>>> HOST_WIDE_INT); >>>> extern HOST_WIDE_INT mul_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, HOST_WIDE_INT); >>>> extern HOST_WIDE_INT least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT, >>>> HOST_WIDE_INT); >>>> >>>> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >>>> + >>>> +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >>>> +extern HOST_WIDE_INT sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, unsigned int); >>>> +#else >>>> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT >>>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>>> +{ >>>> + gcc_checking_assert (prec <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); >>>> >>>> this should go to hwint.c (also without masking prec). >>>> >>>> Richard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> kenny >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 04/02/2013 05:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kenneth Zadeck >>>>>> <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> richard, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was able to add everything except for the checking asserts. >>>>>>> While >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> think that this is a reasonable idea, it is difficult to add that to >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> function that is defined in hwint.h because of circular includes. I >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> move this another file (though this appears to be the logical correct >>>>>>> place >>>>>>> for it), or we can do without the asserts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The context is that [sz]ext_hwi is that are used are over the >>>>>>> compiler >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> are generally written out long. The wide-int class uses them also, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> wide-int did not see like the right place for them to live and i >>>>>>> believe >>>>>>> that you suggested that i move them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ok to commit, or do you have a suggested resolution to the assert >>>>>>> issue? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, do >>>>>> >>>>>> #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING >>>>>> extern HOST_WIDE_INT sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT, unsigned int); >>>>>> #else >>>>>> +/* Sign extend SRC starting from PREC. */ >>>>>> + >>>>>> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT >>>>>> +sext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, unsigned int prec) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) >>>>>> + return src; >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + { >>>>>> int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - prec; >>>>>> + return (src << shift) >> shift; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> +} >>>>>> #endif >>>>>> >>>>>> and for ENABLE_CHECKING only provide an out-of-line implementation >>>>>> in hwint.c. That's how we did it with abs_hwi (well, we just do not >>>>>> provide >>>>>> an inline variant there - that's another possibility). >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that hwint.h is always included after config.h so the >>>>>> ENABLE_CHECKING >>>>>> definition should be available. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard. >>>>>> >>>>>>> kenny >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 03/27/2013 10:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kenneth Zadeck >>>>>>>> <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is the first of my wide int patches with joseph's comments and >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> patch rot removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to get these pre approved for the next stage 1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - (prec & >>>>>>>> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1)); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this should gcc_checking_assert that prec is not out of >>>>>>>> range >>>>>>>> (any reason why prec is signed int and not unsigned int?) rather >>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>> ignore bits in prec. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT >>>>>>>> +zext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, int prec) >>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>> + if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) >>>>>>>> + return src; >>>>>>>> + else >>>>>>>> + return src & (((HOST_WIDE_INT)1 >>>>>>>> + << (prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1))) - 1); >>>>>>>> +} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> likewise. Also I'm not sure I agree about the signedness of the >>>>>>>> result >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> src. >>>>>>>> zext_hwi (-1, HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) < 0 is true which is odd. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The patch misses context of uses, so I'm not sure what the above >>>>>>>> functions >>>>>>>> are intended to do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Richard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and >>>>>>>>>> there's >>>>>>>>>> no real need for using "h" here given the promotion of short to >>>>>>>>>> int; >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> can just use "" (rather than e.g. needing special handling in >>>>>>>>>> xm-mingw32.h >>>>>>>>>> like is done for HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT). >>>>>>>>>> >