public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mattiase at acm dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/109637] New: unnecessary range check in complete switch on bitfield
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 18:17:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-109637-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109637

            Bug ID: 109637
           Summary: unnecessary range check in complete switch on bitfield
           Product: gcc
           Version: 13.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: mattiase at acm dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

This fully populated switch still produces some kind of useless range check:

struct S { unsigned x : 2; };
int f (struct S *s) {
    switch(s->x) {
        case 0: return 0;
        case 1: return 1;
        case 2: return 2;
        case 3: return 3;
    }
}

->
        movzbl  (%rdi), %eax
        andl    $3, %eax
        leal    -1(%rax), %edx
        movzbl  %al, %eax
        cmpb    $3, %dl
        movl    $0, %edx
        cmovnb  %edx, %eax
        ret

GCC apparently understands that the switch is complete at some level since
anything after the switch is recognised as dead code, so the range check is a
bit puzzling.

The code is fine if we explicitly mask the switch value as in `switch(s->x &
3)`:

        movzbl  (%rdi), %eax
        andl    $3, %eax
        ret

             reply	other threads:[~2023-04-26 18:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-26 18:17 mattiase at acm dot org [this message]
2023-04-26 18:19 ` [Bug middle-end/109637] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-26 18:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/109637] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-26 18:52 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-04-26 19:02 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-04-26 19:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-26 19:16 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-08-11  0:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-11  0:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-109637-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).