also two more pieces of information. With further testing, this seems to
fix
Tests that now work, but didn't before:
===============
ext/random/hypergeometric_distribution/operators/values.cc (test for excess
errors)
New tests that PASS:
ext/random/hypergeometric_distribution/operators/values.cc execution test
================
also, the corresponding frag for fold-const.c on the wide-int branch will
look like
================
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fold-const.c (revision 205224)
+++ gcc/fold-const.c (working copy)
@@ -1030,51 +1030,51 @@ int_const_binop_1 (enum tree_code code,
case TRUNC_DIV_EXPR:
case EXACT_DIV_EXPR:
- res = wi::div_trunc (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::div_trunc (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case FLOOR_DIV_EXPR:
- res = wi::div_floor (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::div_floor (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case CEIL_DIV_EXPR:
- res = wi::div_ceil (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::div_ceil (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case ROUND_DIV_EXPR:
- res = wi::div_round (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::div_round (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case TRUNC_MOD_EXPR:
- res = wi::mod_trunc (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::mod_trunc (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case FLOOR_MOD_EXPR:
- res = wi::mod_floor (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::mod_floor (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case CEIL_MOD_EXPR:
- res = wi::mod_ceil (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::mod_ceil (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case ROUND_MOD_EXPR:
- res = wi::mod_round (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
- if (overflow)
+ if (arg2 == 0)
return NULL_TREE;
+ res = wi::mod_round (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow);
break;
case MIN_EXPR:
================
On 11/20/2013 06:31 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
On 11/13/2013 04:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2013 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Richi,
i am having a little trouble putting this back the way that you want.
The
issue is rem.
what is supposed to happen for INT_MIN % -1?
I would assume because i am failing the last case of
gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-8.c
that INT_MIN %-1 should not overflow even if INT_MIN / -1 does.
however,
Given the conclusion in C11 that a%b should be considered undefined if
a/b
is not representable, I think it's reasonable to say INT_MIN % -1
*should*
be considered to overflow (for all C standard versions) (and bug 30484
is
only a bug for -fwrapv).
however, my local question is what do we want the api to be
int-const-binop-1? The existing behavior seems to be that at least
for
common modes this function silently returns 0 and it is up to the front
ends
to put their own spin on it.
For wide-int you create 1:1 the behavior of current trunk (if a change of
behavior in TImode is not tested in the testsuite then you can ignore
that).
Whatever change you do to semantics of functions you do separately
from wide-int (preferably first on trunk, or at your choice after the
wide-int
merge).
For this case in question I'd say a % -1 should return 0, but for
INT_MIN % -1 that 0 should have TREE_OVERFLOW set (and
thus you need to adjust that c90-const-expr-8.c testcase).
Richard.
kenny
richi,
I have done this exactly as you suggested. bootstrapped and regression
tested on x86-64.
2013-11-20 Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com>
* fold-const.c
(int_const_binop_1): Make INT_MIN % -1 return 0 with the overflow
bit set.
2013-11-20 Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com>
* gcc.dg/c90-const-expr-8.c: Look for overflow on INT_MIN % -1.
* gcc.dg/c99-const-expr-8.c: Look for overflow on INT_MIN % -1.
ok to commit?
kenny
