> Am 19.06.2024 um 20:44 schrieb Jakub Jelinek :
>
> Hi!
>
> We don't really support _Complex _BitInt(N), the only place we use
> bitint complex types is for the .{ADD,SUB,MUL}_OVERFLOW internal function
> results and COMPLEX_EXPR in the usual case should be either not present
> yet because the ifns weren't folded and will be lowered, or optimized
> into something simpler, because normally the complex bitint should be
> used just for extracting the 2 subparts from it.
> Still, with disabled optimizations it can occassionally happen that it
> appears in the IL and that is why there is support for lowering those,
> but it doesn't handle optimizing those too much, so if it uses SSA_NAME,
> it relies on them having a backing VAR_DECL during the lowering.
> This is normally achieves through the
> && ((is_gimple_assign (use_stmt)
> && (gimple_assign_rhs_code (use_stmt)
> != COMPLEX_EXPR))
> || gimple_code (use_stmt) == GIMPLE_COND)
> hunk in gimple_lower_bitint, but as the following testcase shows, there
> is one thing I've missed, the load optimization isn't guarded by the
> above stuff. So, either we'd need to add support for loads to
> lower_complexexpr_stmt, or because they should be really rare, this
> patch just disables the load optimization if at least one load use is
> a COMPLEX_EXPR (like we do already for PHIs, calls, asm).
Sounds reasonable.
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
Ok
Richard
> 2024-06-19 Jakub Jelinek
>
>PR tree-optimization/115544
>* gimple-lower-bitint.cc (gimple_lower_bitint): Disable optimizing
>loads used by COMPLEX_EXPR operands.
>
>* gcc.dg/bitint-107.c: New test.
>
> --- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj2024-06-07 12:17:09.811966904 +0200
> +++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc2024-06-19 15:27:22.378759911 +0200
> @@ -6630,7 +6630,10 @@ gimple_lower_bitint (void)
>continue;
> if (gimple_code (use_stmt) == GIMPLE_PHI
> || is_gimple_call (use_stmt)
> - || gimple_code (use_stmt) == GIMPLE_ASM)
> + || gimple_code (use_stmt) == GIMPLE_ASM
> + || (is_gimple_assign (use_stmt)
> + && (gimple_assign_rhs_code (use_stmt)
> + == COMPLEX_EXPR)))
>{
> optimizable_load = false;
> break;
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-107.c.jj2024-06-19 15:36:32.817747449
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-107.c2024-06-19 14:03:31.383805280 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/115544 */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-forwprop" } */
> +
> +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 129
> +typedef _BitInt(129) B;
> +#else
> +typedef _BitInt(63) B;
> +#endif
> +B a, b;
> +
> +int
> +foo (void)
> +{
> + return __builtin_mul_overflow (a, 1, );
> +}
>
>Jakub
>