On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:25:46PM +0000, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think that's still very much desirable so this followup looks OK.
> Maybe you can re-base it as prerequesite though?
Rebased then (of course with the UADDC/USUBC handling removed from this
first patch, will be added in the second one).
Ok for trunk if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
2023-06-14 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
* gimple-fold.cc (gimple_fold_call): Move handling of arg0
as well as arg1 INTEGER_CSTs for .UBSAN_CHECK_{ADD,SUB,MUL}
and .{ADD,SUB,MUL}_OVERFLOW calls from here...
* fold-const-call.cc (fold_const_call): ... here.
--- gcc/gimple-fold.cc.jj 2023-06-13 18:23:37.199793275 +0200
+++ gcc/gimple-fold.cc 2023-06-14 15:41:51.090987708 +0200
@@ -5702,22 +5702,6 @@ gimple_fold_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *
result = arg0;
else if (subcode == MULT_EXPR && integer_onep (arg0))
result = arg1;
- else if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == INTEGER_CST
- && TREE_CODE (arg1) == INTEGER_CST)
- {
- if (cplx_result)
- result = int_const_binop (subcode, fold_convert (type, arg0),
- fold_convert (type, arg1));
- else
- result = int_const_binop (subcode, arg0, arg1);
- if (result && arith_overflowed_p (subcode, type, arg0, arg1))
- {
- if (cplx_result)
- overflow = build_one_cst (type);
- else
- result = NULL_TREE;
- }
- }
if (result)
{
if (result == integer_zero_node)
--- gcc/fold-const-call.cc.jj 2023-06-02 10:36:43.096967505 +0200
+++ gcc/fold-const-call.cc 2023-06-14 15:40:34.388064498 +0200
@@ -1669,6 +1669,7 @@ fold_const_call (combined_fn fn, tree ty
{
const char *p0, *p1;
char c;
+ tree_code subcode;
switch (fn)
{
case CFN_BUILT_IN_STRSPN:
@@ -1738,6 +1739,46 @@ fold_const_call (combined_fn fn, tree ty
case CFN_FOLD_LEFT_PLUS:
return fold_const_fold_left (type, arg0, arg1, PLUS_EXPR);
+ case CFN_UBSAN_CHECK_ADD:
+ case CFN_ADD_OVERFLOW:
+ subcode = PLUS_EXPR;
+ goto arith_overflow;
+
+ case CFN_UBSAN_CHECK_SUB:
+ case CFN_SUB_OVERFLOW:
+ subcode = MINUS_EXPR;
+ goto arith_overflow;
+
+ case CFN_UBSAN_CHECK_MUL:
+ case CFN_MUL_OVERFLOW:
+ subcode = MULT_EXPR;
+ goto arith_overflow;
+
+ arith_overflow:
+ if (integer_cst_p (arg0) && integer_cst_p (arg1))
+ {
+ tree itype
+ = TREE_CODE (type) == COMPLEX_TYPE ? TREE_TYPE (type) : type;
+ bool ovf = false;
+ tree r = int_const_binop (subcode, fold_convert (itype, arg0),
+ fold_convert (itype, arg1));
+ if (!r || TREE_CODE (r) != INTEGER_CST)
+ return NULL_TREE;
+ if (arith_overflowed_p (subcode, itype, arg0, arg1))
+ ovf = true;
+ if (TREE_OVERFLOW (r))
+ r = drop_tree_overflow (r);
+ if (itype == type)
+ {
+ if (ovf)
+ return NULL_TREE;
+ return r;
+ }
+ else
+ return build_complex (type, r, build_int_cst (itype, ovf));
+ }
+ return NULL_TREE;
+
default:
return fold_const_call_1 (fn, type, arg0, arg1);
}
Jakub
