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 AACE3385800D; Thu,  4 Jan 2024 16:58:01 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AACE3385800D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704387481;
	bh=HyIZ769psgGqPO15qUCraAjPRLW4iIzhKYhSiFR3pm4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Lh0x6dHw6tdKnpQOgOC/lKIIOkrV92lYOB303nBvEvu8s8u0hw4Jo4YCHk/XppjTb
	 FWSoHylW+Bcc27mfGJZrilIdp8vWRbGPUBWfItbckOnpuWghC0ObHUeyHdOxCaVSim
	 dhwDmJ65bK3VYVfkX8efNo16rcrh2NDddSvOCSBQ=
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/113226] [14 Regression]
 testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc fails for cris-elf after
 r14-6888-ga138b99646a555
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 16:58:00 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
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-113226-4-migWcKHvBq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113226-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113226-4@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=3D113226

--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1)
> Huh, how bizarre.
>=20
> > i =3D=3D 1, j =3D=3D -100, i*j =3D=3D 4294967196, max_type(i) =3D=3D 1,=
 max_type(i)*j =3D=3D -100
>=20
> Here i and j are just ordinary 'long long', so I don't get why i*j is
> 4294967196 instead of -100?

Everything else, in particular that int64_t(max_type(i)*j) is -100, seems
correct/expected to me.  FWIW that expression computes the product of the
corresponding promoted/sign-extended 65-bit precision values, and the overa=
ll
check is analogous to

  int32_t i =3D 1, j =3D -100;
  assert (int64_t(i*j) =3D=3D int64_t(i)*j);

except the two precisions are 64/65 bits instead of 32/64 bits.

(When shorten_p is true, the overall check is analogous to
 assert (i*j =3D=3D int32_t(int64_t(i)*j)) instead.)=