From: Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 22:52:41 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: PR middle-end/109031: Fix final value replacement from narrower IVs.
X-Git-Tag: basepoints/gcc-14~586
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=eb1d8df792f990574cbb695b55c92ee2684fc96b;p=thirdparty%2Fgcc.git

PR middle-end/109031: Fix final value replacement from narrower IVs.

This patch fixes a P1 regression, a problem with my February 2022 patch
to improve folding for final value replacement:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590618.html

The motivation for the original patch is that because we know the number
of loop iterations can't be negative, final value expressions such as
(int) ((unsigned int) x + 4294967295) + 1 can be simplified to x,
as this is effectively ((x - 1) + 1) without overflow.

The bug/oversight is that using integer_all_onesp to check for the
implicit tree constant -1 it didn't consider that the inner (unsigned)
type might be narrower than hthe outer result type.  For the case in the
PR, (int)((unsigned char)x + 255) + 1 gets simplified to (int)x, but
when x is originally zero, the correct result should be 256.

The fix is to check that the inner type's precision (the width of the
subtraction) is at least as wide as the result type (that of the addition).

I've also added a test for signed types, but without -fwrapv this
invokes undefined behaviour, and with -fwrapv it doesn't exhibit the
problem in the PR.

2023-03-12  Roger Sayle  <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>

gcc/ChangeLog
	PR middle-end/109031
	* tree-chrec.cc (chrec_apply): When folding "{a, +, a} (x-1)",
	ensure that the type of x is as wide or wider than the type of a.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
	PR middle-end/109031
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-1.c: New test case.
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-2.c: Likewise.
---

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-1.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..84e1a08be295
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+unsigned char uc;
+unsigned short us;
+
+void testuc() {
+  unsigned int g = 0;
+  unsigned int *p1 = &g;
+  unsigned char *p2 = &uc;
+
+  do {
+    (*p1)++;
+    (*p2)--;
+  } while (uc);
+
+  if (g != 256)
+    __builtin_abort();
+}
+
+void testus() {
+  unsigned int g = 0;
+  unsigned int *p1 = &g;
+  unsigned short *p2 = &us;
+
+  do {
+    (*p1)++;
+    (*p2)--;
+  } while (us);
+
+  if (g != 65536)
+    __builtin_abort();
+}
+
+int main() {
+  testuc();
+  testus();
+  return 0;
+}
+
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-2.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..6f28b3b5ed8a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr109031-2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fwrapv" } */
+signed char sc;
+signed short ss;
+
+void testsc() {
+  unsigned int g = 0;
+  unsigned int *p1 = &g;
+  signed char *p2 = &sc;
+
+  do {
+    (*p1)++;
+    (*p2)--;
+  } while (sc);
+
+  if (g != 256)
+    __builtin_abort();
+}
+
+void testss() {
+  unsigned int g = 0;
+  unsigned int *p1 = &g;
+  signed short *p2 = &ss;
+
+  do {
+    (*p1)++;
+    (*p2)--;
+  } while (ss);
+
+  if (g != 65536)
+    __builtin_abort();
+}
+
+int main() {
+  testsc();
+  testss();
+  return 0;
+}
+
diff --git a/gcc/tree-chrec.cc b/gcc/tree-chrec.cc
index f93d8dc406c1..2f67581591a5 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-chrec.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-chrec.cc
@@ -623,7 +623,9 @@ chrec_apply (unsigned var,
 	  else if (operand_equal_p (CHREC_LEFT (chrec), chrecr)
 		   && TREE_CODE (x) == PLUS_EXPR
 		   && integer_all_onesp (TREE_OPERAND (x, 1))
-		   && !POINTER_TYPE_P (type))
+		   && !POINTER_TYPE_P (type)
+		   && TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (x))
+		      >= TYPE_PRECISION (type))
 	    {
 	      /* We know the number of iterations can't be negative.
 		 So {a, +, a} (x-1) -> "a*x".  */