From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:08:54 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: fold-const: Handle BITINT_TYPE in range_check_type
X-Git-Tag: basepoints/gcc-15~6263
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=b24fd3bccf76821b46c52cf375e460b7e64d4139;p=thirdparty%2Fgcc.git

fold-const: Handle BITINT_TYPE in range_check_type

When discussing PR111369 with Andrew Pinski, I've realized that
I haven't added BITINT_TYPE handling to range_check_type.  Right now
(unsigned) max + 1 == (unsigned) min for signed _BitInt,l so I think we
don't need to do the extra hops for BITINT_TYPE (though possibly we don't
need them for INTEGER_TYPE either in the two's complement word and we don't
support anything else, though I really don't know if Ada or some other
FEs don't create weird INTEGER_TYPEs).

2023-09-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	* fold-const.cc (range_check_type): Handle BITINT_TYPE like
	OFFSET_TYPE.
---

diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
index d19b4666c652..c5ac82200c8e 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
@@ -5565,7 +5565,12 @@ range_check_type (tree etype)
       else
 	return NULL_TREE;
     }
-  else if (POINTER_TYPE_P (etype) || TREE_CODE (etype) == OFFSET_TYPE)
+  else if (POINTER_TYPE_P (etype)
+	   || TREE_CODE (etype) == OFFSET_TYPE
+	   /* Right now all BITINT_TYPEs satisfy
+	      (unsigned) max + 1 == (unsigned) min, so no need to verify
+	      that like for INTEGER_TYPEs.  */
+	   || TREE_CODE (etype) == BITINT_TYPE)
     etype = unsigned_type_for (etype);
   return etype;
 }