> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:16 schrieb David Malcolm via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>:
>
> The ICE in PR analyzer/111441 is due to this assertion in
> fold_binary_loc failing:
>
> 11722 gcc_assert (TYPE_PRECISION (atype) == TYPE_PRECISION
> (type));
>
> where code=MULT_EXPR, type=<integer_type 0x7fffea6645e8 int>, and:
>
> (gdb) p type
> $1 = <integer_type 0x7fffea6645e8 int>
> (gdb) p atype
> $2 = <integer_type 0x7fffea6647e0 long unsigned int>
>
> due to the analyzer building a mult_expr node with those types for the
> arguments.
>
> I have a fix for this (by adding some missing casts within the
> analyzer's svalue representation), but it got me wondering: is there a
> way to check valid types for binary operations in GENERIC?
>
> Looking at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Unary-and-Binary-Expressions.html
> I see that for PLUS_EXPR, MINUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR their "operands may
> have either integral or floating type, but there will never be [sic]
> case in which one operand is of floating type and the other is of
> integral type."
>
> Is it the case that for PLUS_EXPR, MINUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR, their
> arguments *must* have the same precision? Or that types_compatible_p
> is true? What about other binary operations?
>
> FWIW I currently have this hacked-up assertion in my working copy:
>
> const svalue *
> region_model_manager::get_or_create_binop (tree type, enum tree_code op,
> const svalue *arg0,
> const svalue *arg1)
> {
> if (arg0->get_type ()
> && arg1->get_type ()
> && op != POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)
> {
> // FIXME: what ops does this apply to? MULT_EXPR?
> gcc_assert (types_compatible_p (arg0->get_type (), arg1->get_type ()));
> }
>
>
> Is there a function to check type-compatibility of the args given a
> particular enum tree_code?
No. The best source is the GIMPLE verifier in tree-cfg.cc
> Sorry if I'm missing something here
> Dave
>
