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 C48D4385802B; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:33:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C48D4385802B
From: "vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/30484] INT_MIN % -1 is well defined for -fwrapv
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:33:07 +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: 4.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
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-30484-4-icRM353d7C@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-30484-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-30484-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:33:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30484

--- Comment #16 from Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> -=
--
The issue is that the source code assuming -fno-wrapv may be more complex, =
thus
giving slower generated code. Here's an example, which consists in adding 3
signed integers, for which the user knows that the sum is representable, so
that the only issue is a potential integer overflow in the first addition. =
I've
used GCC 11.2.0 on x86_64.

With -fwrapv, the integer overflow is well-defined as wrapping, so that the
user can write:

int f (int a, int b, int c)
{
  return a + b + c;
}

The generated code with -O3 -fwrapv has 2 instructions (the 2 additions):

        addl    %edx, %esi
        leal    (%rsi,%rdi), %eax

But without -fwrapv, one needs to make sure that one doesn't get any integer
overflow. Assume that the user knows that there is a single negative number
among the 3 integers, so that using this negative number in the first addit=
ion
will avoid an integer overflow. So the user can write:

int f (int a, int b, int c)
{
  if (b < 0)
    return a + b + c;
  else
    return a + c + b;
}

The generated code with -O3 has 6 instructions:

        leal    (%rdi,%rdx), %eax
        addl    %esi, %edi
        addl    %edx, %edi
        addl    %esi, %eax
        testl   %esi, %esi
        cmovs   %edi, %eax

In theory, the compiler could normally optimize to produce the same code as
with the source that assumes -fwrapv (here, a + b + c and a + c + b are
obviously equivalent on a typical processor), but in practice, this is often
not the case as shown above.=