Hi!
When discussing PR111369 with Andrew Pinski, I've realized that
I haven't added BITINT_TYPE handling to range_check_type. Right now
(unsigned) max + 1 == (unsigned) min for signed _BitInt,l so I think we
don't need to do the extra hops for BITINT_TYPE (though possibly we don't
need them for INTEGER_TYPE either in the two's complement word and we don't
support anything else, though I really don't know if Ada or some other
FEs don't create weird INTEGER_TYPEs).
And, also I think it is undesirable when being asked for signed_type_for
of unsigned _BitInt(1) (which is valid) to get signed _BitInt(1) (which is
invalid, the standard only allows signed _BitInt(2) and larger), so the
patch returns 1-bit signed INTEGER_TYPE for those cases.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2023-09-11 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
gcc/
* tree.cc (signed_or_unsigned_type_for): Return INTEGER_TYPE for
signed variant of unsigned _BitInt(1).
* fold-const.cc (range_check_type): Handle BITINT_TYPE like
OFFSET_TYPE.
gcc/c-family/
* c-common.cc (c_common_signed_or_unsigned_type): Return INTEGER_TYPE
for signed variant of unsigned _BitInt(1).
--- gcc/tree.cc.jj 2023-09-06 17:50:30.707589026 +0200
+++ gcc/tree.cc 2023-09-11 16:24:58.749625569 +0200
@@ -11096,7 +11096,7 @@ signed_or_unsigned_type_for (int unsigne
else
return NULL_TREE;
- if (TREE_CODE (type) == BITINT_TYPE)
+ if (TREE_CODE (type) == BITINT_TYPE && (unsignedp || bits > 1))
return build_bitint_type (bits, unsignedp);
return build_nonstandard_integer_type (bits, unsignedp);
}
--- gcc/c-family/c-common.cc.jj 2023-09-06 17:34:24.467254960 +0200
+++ gcc/c-family/c-common.cc 2023-09-11 16:24:07.873300311 +0200
@@ -2739,7 +2739,9 @@ c_common_signed_or_unsigned_type (int un
|| TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) == unsignedp)
return type;
- if (TREE_CODE (type) == BITINT_TYPE)
+ if (TREE_CODE (type) == BITINT_TYPE
+ /* signed _BitInt(1) is invalid, avoid creating that. */
+ && (unsignedp || TYPE_PRECISION (type) > 1))
return build_bitint_type (TYPE_PRECISION (type), unsignedp);
#define TYPE_OK(node) \
--- gcc/fold-const.cc.jj 2023-09-11 11:05:47.473728473 +0200
+++ gcc/fold-const.cc 2023-09-11 16:28:06.052141516 +0200
@@ -5565,7 +5565,12 @@ range_check_type (tree etype)
else
return NULL_TREE;
}
- else if (POINTER_TYPE_P (etype) || TREE_CODE (etype) == OFFSET_TYPE)
+ else if (POINTER_TYPE_P (etype)
+ || TREE_CODE (etype) == OFFSET_TYPE
+ /* Right now all BITINT_TYPEs satisfy
+ (unsigned) max + 1 == (unsigned) min, so no need to verify
+ that like for INTEGER_TYPEs. */
+ || TREE_CODE (etype) == BITINT_TYPE)
etype = unsigned_type_for (etype);
return etype;
}
Jakub
