[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[gabravier at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

Gabriel Ravier <gabravier at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gabravier at gmail dot com

--- Comment #8 from Gabriel Ravier <gabravier at gmail dot com> ---
So, is there still an optimization problem on that kind of basic thing ? Or
have some things in GCC have changed since this time to make this irrelevant ?
Looking at these same examples at .optimized even in latest trunk still shows
the same conversions to int... 🤔

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |easyhack
   Last reconfirmed|2021-08-21 00:00:00         |2021-9-2

--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The optimization is still not done, the shift could be unconditionally made a
logical shift but on the smaller type.

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[roger at nextmovesoftware dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |13.0
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
                 CC|                            |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com
      Known to work|                            |13.0

--- Comment #10 from Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> ---
This is now fixed (at the tree level) on mainline (and was fixed in GCC 13).
For those wondering, LSHIFT_EXPR is well defined (in this case) in GIMPLE,
hence the "optimized" dump currently looks like:
void f ()
{
  short int * a.0_1;
  short int _2;
  short int _3;

  a.0_1 = a;
  _2 = *a.0_1;
  _3 = _2 << 1;
  *a.0_1 = _3;
  return;

}

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-04-05 13:49 -------
I'm no longer working on this.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot  |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-01 14:17 -------
I have two fixes.  One really safe and one ok via IRC communication.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-12-01 10:53:06         |2005-12-01 14:17:56
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-01 12:46 -------
I.e. 6.3.1.3/3 says that conversion from type T to signed type is
implementation defined if the value doesn't fit.  And we define it to reducing
it modulo 2^N.

So, for !flag_wrapv

  (short)((int)0x8000 << 1) == 0

but
  0x8000 << 1  is undefined.

So this transformation is only ok for flag_wrapv.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-01 12:28 -------
convert_to_integer contains

        case LSHIFT_EXPR:
          /* We can pass truncation down through left shifting
             when the shift count is a nonnegative constant and
             the target type is unsigned.  */
          if (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)) == INTEGER_CST
              && tree_int_cst_sgn (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)) >= 0 
              && TYPE_UNSIGNED (type)
              && TREE_CODE (TYPE_SIZE (type)) == INTEGER_CST)

which for our case then (should) falls through to

...
                    /* Don't do unsigned arithmetic where signed was wanted,
                       or vice versa.
                       Exception: if both of the original operands were
                       unsigned then we can safely do the work as unsigned.
                       Exception: shift operations take their type solely
                       from the first argument.
                       Exception: the LSHIFT_EXPR case above requires that
                       we perform this operation unsigned lest we produce
                       signed-overflow undefinedness.
                       And we may need to do it as unsigned
                       if we truncate to the original size.  */
                    if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (expr))
                        || (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (arg0))
                            && (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))
                                || ex_form == LSHIFT_EXPR
                                || ex_form == RSHIFT_EXPR
                                || ex_form == LROTATE_EXPR
                                || ex_form == RROTATE_EXPR))
                        || ex_form == LSHIFT_EXPR)
                      typex = lang_hooks.types.unsigned_type (typex);
                    else
                      typex = lang_hooks.types.signed_type (typex);

now, this path seems to handle LSHIFT_EXPR of signed types, so the exeption
above does not need to apply.  Further, I don't understand the reasoning
why we need to do the shift unsigned - we invoke undefined behavior for
signed overflow, but the original code, (short) int << n invoked undefined
behavior in truncating the int to short in case the value doesn't fit.  Which
of course still happens for the unsigned case.

So, what would break with

Index: convert.c 
===================================================================
*** convert.c   (revision 107813)
--- convert.c   (working copy)
*************** convert_to_integer (tree type, tree expr
*** 512,518 ****
             the target type is unsigned.  */ 
          if (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)) == INTEGER_CST
              && tree_int_cst_sgn (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)) >= 0
-             && TYPE_UNSIGNED (type)
              && TREE_CODE (TYPE_SIZE (type)) == INTEGER_CST)
            {
              /* If shift count is less than the width of the truncated type,
--- 490,495 ----
*************** convert_to_integer (tree type, tree expr
*** 607,614 ****
                                || ex_form == LSHIFT_EXPR
                                || ex_form == RSHIFT_EXPR
                                || ex_form == LROTATE_EXPR
!                               || ex_form == RROTATE_EXPR)) 
!                       || ex_form == LSHIFT_EXPR)
                      typex = lang_hooks.types.unsigned_type (typex);
                    else
                      typex = lang_hooks.types.signed_type (typex);
--- 584,590 ----
                                || ex_form == LSHIFT_EXPR
                                || ex_form == RSHIFT_EXPR
                                || ex_form == LROTATE_EXPR
!                               || ex_form == RROTATE_EXPR)))
                      typex = lang_hooks.types.unsigned_type (typex);
                    else
                      typex = lang_hooks.types.signed_type (typex);

?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-01 11:01 -------
Doh.  The C frontend _does_ the promotion (in the unsigned case):

 (intD.0) *aD.1296 << 1

just convert.c:convert_to_integer "folds" it to a shift on unsigned short
again.

This transformation should be moved to fold instead.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186

[Bug middle-end/25186] (short)(((int)short_var) <<1) should be folded so that the shift is done in the short type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-01 10:53 -------
Confirmed.  The first testcase is really just

short *a;
void f(void)
{
  *a = *a << 1;
}

interestingly, the C frontend does not do integer promotion of

unsigned short *a;
void f(voif)
{
  *a = *a << 1;
}

where *a should be promoted to int as of 6.3.1.8 and 6.5.7/3, which
says "Integer promotions are performed on each of the operands".  Now
the question is how to read this, but either the C frontend does
unnecessary promution for the signed case or it misses it for the unsigned
case.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-12-01 10:53:06
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25186