Hi folks, I confirmed that gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_int is an abstract for various numbers.
So the number's validation would be added then. Best regards. On Tue, Dec 5, 2023, 18:14 Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Maxime! > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023, 05:26 Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> wrote: > >> >> >> Op 03-12-2023 om 18:26 schreef Nala Ginrut: >> > (jit-define (square x) >> > (:anno: (int) -> int) >> > (* x x)) >> > (square 5) >> >> >> Potentially-overflowing arithmetic involving ints (not unsigned ints, >> but ints)? Best document somewhere to what the jit code '(* x x)' >> evaluates when (not (<= min-int (* x x) max-int))). >> > > There's no type inference in libgccjit, so the high level framework has to > handle accurate types. > > I use "int" here because libgccjit only provides int rvalue constructor, > yet. It seems lack of rich number types as rvalue in the present > implementation. Even boolean has to be handled by high level framework and > cast it to int respectively. > > May be we need GCC folks help. > > >> Personally, I'm in favor of explicit long names like >> >> */error-on-overflow (<-- maybe on the C-level the function could >> return a tagged union representing (failure [no value]) / (success [some >> value], at a slight performance cost) >> */wrap-around >> */undefined-on-overflow (<-- like in C, for maximal performance and >> dragons). >> > > There was such check, but I've removed it. Since even you detect the > int/short/long exactly, libgccjit only provides int rvalue for all cases of > numbers. I'm not sure if it's waiting for contribution or intended as an > unified int abstract. > > >> (Likewise for +, - and unsigned int) >> >> Sure, they are a bit verbose, but they are explicit and >> non-explicitness+undefined behaviour of'*' in C has caused serious >> issues in the past, so I'd think it's better that the programmer has to >> choose what, in their situation, are the appropriate semantics. >> > > I see your point :-) > Yes, it's a bit hard to provide an abstract arithmetic with type inference > for all cases, providing each for different types will be easier and > flexible. > > Thanks! > Best regards. > > >>
