From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-353357-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20778 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2011 18:36:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 20723 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2011 18:36:19 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:36:09 +0000
From: "zackw at panix dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/48580] New: missed optimization: integer overflow checks
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: zackw at panix dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48580-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:36:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg01261.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580

           Summary: missed optimization: integer overflow checks
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: zackw@panix.com


To the best of my knowledge, this is the only safe way (without -fwrapv) to
check whether the product of two signed integers overflowed:

bool product_does_not_overflow(signed x, signed y)
{
  unsigned tmp = x * unsigned(y);

  return signed(tmp) > 0 && tmp / x == unsigned(y);
}

(I believe C and C++ are the same in this regard but I could be wrong.  If
there is a better way to write this test I would love to know about it.)

g++ 4.6 produces this assembly dump on x86-64:

_Z25product_does_not_overflowii:
    movl    %esi, %edx
    xorl    %eax, %eax
    imull    %edi, %edx
    testl    %edx, %edx
    jle    .L2
    movl    %edx, %eax
    xorl    %edx, %edx
    divl    %edi
    cmpl    %eax, %esi
    sete    %al
.L2:
    rep
    ret

but, if I understand the semantics of IMUL correctly, it could do this instead:

_Z25product_does_not_overflowii:
    xorl    %eax, %eax
    imull    %edi, %esi
    setno    %al
    ret

which is a pretty substantial micro-win, particularly in getting rid of a
divide.