Hi, On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 13:44, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> writes: > > Hi Richard, > > > > The 10/26/2020 11:29, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> writes: > >> > /* We can't do anything smart if the amount to copy is not constant. > >> > */ > >> > if (!CONST_INT_P (operands[2])) > >> > return false; > >> > > >> > - n = INTVAL (operands[2]); > >> > + /* This may get truncated but that's fine as it would be above our > >> > maximum > >> > + memset inline limit. */ > >> > + unsigned tmp = INTVAL (operands[2]); > >> > >> That's not true for (1ULL << 32) + 1 for example, since the truncated > >> value will come under the limit. I think we should just do: > >> > >> unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT tmp = UINTVAL (operands[2]); > >> > >> without a comment. > >> > > > > Updated patch attached. > > > > Ok for master and GCC 8, 9, 10? > > OK, thanks. > > Richard
The new test fails with -mabi=ilp32: FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr97535.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr97535.c:7:1: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr97535.c:7:13: error: size of array 'raw_buffer' is too large /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr97535.c:11:9: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 Do you mind fixing it? Thanks, Christophe
