On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote:
>> Btw, if int_fits_type_p is supposed to be only called for INTEGER_TYPEs
>> then
>>
>> /* If arg1 is an INTEGER_CST, fold it to new type. */
>> if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (new_arg0))
>> && int_fits_type_p (arg1, TREE_TYPE (new_arg0)))
>> {
>> if (gimple_assign_cast_p (arg0_def_stmt))
>> new_arg1 = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (new_arg0), arg1);
>> else
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> should maybe be changed to check for INTEGER_TYPE instead of
>> INTEGRAL_TYPE_P? And int_fits_type_p should have an assert
>> asserting it is fed only INTEGER_TYPEs?
>
> Yes, that would certainly solve the problem too. No strong opinion, my
> proposed fix was a compromise aimed at changing nothing except for Ada.
>
>> Alternatively int_fits_type_p looks at TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE, would
>> it work to set that to [0, 1] for your Ada BOOLEAN_TYPEs?
>
> No, BOOLEAN_TYPEs are base types in Ada so must have maximal range.
>
>> For your patch, can you use integer_zerop () || integer_truep () and also
>> fix wi::fits_to_tree_p?
>
> But integer_truep is just integer_onep for BOOLEAN_TYPEs.
Yes, but it's more descriptive IMHO.
> And fits_to_tree_p
> doesn't really need to be changed if int_fits_type_p is and the API layering
> is properly enforced, does it?
Well. fits_to_tree_p avoids creating an INTEGER_CST in ggc memory and thus
is the prefered way to test if you have a wide-int but not yet an INTEGER_CST.
>> Would it work to have wide_int_to_tree check that we never generate
>> a BOOLEAN_TYPE constant that is not zero or one? That is, does
>> the Ada FE create those?
>
> In a valid program, no. In an invalid program, maybe, in which case we don't
> want to ICE so we would need to filter them out and raise Constraint_Error
> instead when we run into one; certainly doable I'd say.
Ok, just looking for a way to "easily" fend off other cases that are not catched
by patching the fits-tree routines.
Richard.
> --
> Eric Botcazou
