| Message ID | alpine.LNX.2.00.1104222126220.810@zhemvz.fhfr.qr |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 09:27:50PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > There is a scary comment before build_int_cst_type why build_int_cst > can't be sane. Fortunately it is not true. If it were there would > be other code to be fixed. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg02297.html suggests that at least back then the old semantics of build_int_cst was needed in round_up and build_prim_array_type. > 2011-04-22 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> > > * tree.c (build_int_cst): Properly create canonicalized integer > constants. > (build_int_cst_type): Remove scary comments. Jakub
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: > > There is a scary comment before build_int_cst_type why build_int_cst > can't be sane. Fortunately it is not true. If it were there would > be other code to be fixed. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk. > > Richard. > > 2011-04-22 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> > > * tree.c (build_int_cst): Properly create canonicalized integer > constants. > (build_int_cst_type): Remove scary comments. > This caused: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48753
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:11 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: >> >> There is a scary comment before build_int_cst_type why build_int_cst >> can't be sane. Fortunately it is not true. If it were there would >> be other code to be fixed. >> >> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk. >> >> Richard. >> >> 2011-04-22 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> >> >> * tree.c (build_int_cst): Properly create canonicalized integer >> constants. >> (build_int_cst_type): Remove scary comments. >> > > This caused: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48753 > This also caused: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48846
Index: gcc/tree.c =================================================================== --- gcc/tree.c (revision 172832) +++ gcc/tree.c (working copy) @@ -1004,7 +1004,7 @@ copy_list (tree list) } -/* Create an INT_CST node with a LOW value sign extended. */ +/* Create an INT_CST node with a LOW value sign extended to TYPE. */ tree build_int_cst (tree type, HOST_WIDE_INT low) @@ -1013,17 +1013,10 @@ build_int_cst (tree type, HOST_WIDE_INT if (!type) type = integer_type_node; - return build_int_cst_wide (type, low, low < 0 ? -1 : 0); + return double_int_to_tree (type, shwi_to_double_int (low)); } -/* Create an INT_CST node with a LOW value in TYPE. The value is sign extended - if it is negative. This function is similar to build_int_cst, but - the extra bits outside of the type precision are cleared. Constants - with these extra bits may confuse the fold so that it detects overflows - even in cases when they do not occur, and in general should be avoided. - We cannot however make this a default behavior of build_int_cst without - more intrusive changes, since there are parts of gcc that rely on the extra - precision of the integer constants. */ +/* Create an INT_CST node with a LOW value sign extended to TYPE. */ tree build_int_cst_type (tree type, HOST_WIDE_INT low)