Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
These are fine.
Thanks. I'll hold off applying it until the java fix has been reviewed
(which could be after the merge -- no need to hold it up for this IMO).
Richard
On 05/02/2014 03:20 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch adds some assertions against sext (.., 0) and zext (..., 0).
The former is undefined at the sext_hwi level and the latter is disallowed
for consistency with the former.
Also, set_bit (rightly IMO) can't handle bit = precision. For
precision = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT it would invoke undefined
behaviour while for other precisions I think it would crash.
A case with precision = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT showed up in java
(fix posted separately).
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu and powerpc64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
Thanks,
Richard
Index: gcc/wide-int.h
===
--- gcc/wide-int.h 2014-05-02 16:28:09.561842842 +0100
+++ gcc/wide-int.h 2014-05-02 16:44:04.015463718 +0100
@@ -2046,6 +2046,8 @@ wi::sext (const T x, unsigned int offse
unsigned int precision = get_precision (result);
WIDE_INT_REF_FOR (T) xi (x, precision);
+ gcc_checking_assert (offset != 0);
+
if (offset = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
{
val[0] = sext_hwi (xi.ulow (), offset);
@@ -2065,6 +2067,8 @@ wi::zext (const T x, unsigned int offse
unsigned int precision = get_precision (result);
WIDE_INT_REF_FOR (T) xi (x, precision);
+ gcc_checking_assert (offset != 0);
+
/* This is not just an optimization, it is actually required to
maintain canonization. */
if (offset = precision)
@@ -2102,6 +2106,9 @@ wi::set_bit (const T x, unsigned int bi
WI_UNARY_RESULT_VAR (result, val, T, x);
unsigned int precision = get_precision (result);
WIDE_INT_REF_FOR (T) xi (x, precision);
+
+ gcc_checking_assert (bit precision);
+
if (precision = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
{
val[0] = xi.ulow () | ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 1 bit);
