From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 437F6385189D; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:26:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 437F6385189D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1669227983;
	bh=WKjhuioLjaag5/9ldDc4LU0wXbjJ6zaim7BT2bsBix8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=hJlVKUXMCJ8xRuxJeOvJi/snK1iPwd+7ltkK/jtWjvGDv1sC4xOUGKp2SEBGeec2o
	 cVDkEcxiYNTSNsECg7ZmVg1XAKXmW0grYTOUNtp+m7Nh5cp5pBCLl2BujoSPrtwL7h
	 MIq368tpbuRrbMPoB4srY0lAKkUjGYAX9jqUJLQ8=
From: "david.faust at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/107846] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to
 represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:26:22 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: david.faust at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107846-4-0AuPnBa8t7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107846-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107846-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107846

--- Comment #1 from David Faust <david.faust at oracle dot com> ---
I think this is a bug in the test itself (or with these macros from libbpf).

libbpf/src/bpf_endian.h
#define ___bpf_mvb(x, b, n, m) ((__u##b)(x) << (b-(n+1)*8) >> (b-8) << (m*8=
))

#define ___bpf_swab16(x) ((__u16)(                      \
                          ___bpf_mvb(x, 16, 0, 1) |     \
                          ___bpf_mvb(x, 16, 1, 0)))

# define __bpf_constant_htons(x)        ___bpf_swab16(x)

In tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_tunnel.c:

static const int cfg_port =3D 8000;
static const int cfg_udp_src =3D 20000;
...

then at e.g. line 276

        if (tcph.dest !=3D __bpf_constant_htons(cfg_port))
                return TC_ACT_OK;

Expanding this __bpf_constant_htons macro:

__bpf_constant_htons (cfg_port)
__bpf_constant_htons (8000)
((__u16)(8000) << (16-(0+1)*8) >> (16-8) << (1*8)
((__u16)(8000) << (16-(1)*8) >> (8) << 8)
((__u16)(8000) << (8) >> 8 << 8
((__u16)(8000) << 8)

...which raises the shift-overflow warning.=