Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> writes:
> This PR was due to code in which -(int) foo was suposed to be sign-extended,
> but was being ORed with an unsigned int and so ended up being zero-extended.
> Fixed by using the proper-width type.
As Kostya rightly said in the PR, this should have had a testcase too.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. It failed before the patch on x86_64,
passes after it, and is skipped for -m32. OK to install?
Thanks,
Richard
gcc/testsuite/
PR tree-optimization/61095
* gcc.dg/torture/pr61095.c: New test.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr61095.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null 2014-05-03 11:58:38.033951363 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr61095.c 2014-05-08 08:46:01.203827892
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
+
+extern void __attribute__ ((noreturn)) abort (void);
+
+int __attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
+foo (unsigned long addr) {
+ unsigned long *p = (unsigned long*)((addr & 0xffff83fffffffff8UL) * 4);
+ unsigned long xxx = (unsigned long)(p + 1);
+ return xxx >= 0x3c000000000UL;
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+ if (foo (0))
+ abort ();
+ if (foo (0x7c0000000000UL))
+ abort ();
+ if (!foo (0xfc0000000000UL))
+ abort ();
+ return 0;
+}
