The big-endian _BitInt support in libgcc was written without any
testing and so I haven't discovered I've made one mistake in it
(in multiple places).
The bitint_reduce_prec function attempts to optimize inputs
which have some larger precision but at runtime they are found
to need smaller number of limbs.
For little-endian that is handled just by returning smaller
precision (or negative precision for signed), but for
big-endian we need to adjust the passed in limb pointer so that
when it returns smaller precision the argument still contains
the least significant limbs for the returned precision.
2025-05-20 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
* libgcc2.c (bitint_reduce_prec): For big endian
__LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ use ++*p and --*p instead of
++p and --p.
* soft-fp/bitint.h (bitint_reduce_prec): Likewise.
if (prec >= -1)
return -2;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif
if (prec >= -1)
return -2;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif
if ((Wtype) mslimb >= 0)
{
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- --p;
+ --*p;
#endif
return prec - 1;
}
if (prec == 0)
return 1;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif
if (prec == 0)
return 1;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif
if (prec >= -1)
return -2;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif
if (prec >= -1)
return -2;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif
if ((BILtype) mslimb >= 0)
{
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- --p;
+ --*p;
#endif
return prec - 1;
}
if (prec == 0)
return 1;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif
if (prec == 0)
return 1;
#if __LIBGCC_BITINT_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
- ++p;
+ ++*p;
#else
--i;
#endif