* Valid types for a binary op in GENERIC?
@ 2024-02-14 17:14 David Malcolm
2024-02-14 17:38 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Malcolm @ 2024-02-14 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
The ICE in PR analyzer/111441 is due to this assertion in
fold_binary_loc failing:
11722 gcc_assert (TYPE_PRECISION (atype) == TYPE_PRECISION (type));
where code=MULT_EXPR, type=<integer_type 0x7fffea6645e8 int>, and:
(gdb) p type
$1 = <integer_type 0x7fffea6645e8 int>
(gdb) p atype
$2 = <integer_type 0x7fffea6647e0 long unsigned int>
due to the analyzer building a mult_expr node with those types for the
arguments.
I have a fix for this (by adding some missing casts within the
analyzer's svalue representation), but it got me wondering: is there a
way to check valid types for binary operations in GENERIC?
Looking at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Unary-and-Binary-Expressions.html
I see that for PLUS_EXPR, MINUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR their "operands may
have either integral or floating type, but there will never be [sic]
case in which one operand is of floating type and the other is of
integral type."
Is it the case that for PLUS_EXPR, MINUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR, their
arguments *must* have the same precision? Or that types_compatible_p
is true? What about other binary operations?
FWIW I currently have this hacked-up assertion in my working copy:
const svalue *
region_model_manager::get_or_create_binop (tree type, enum tree_code op,
const svalue *arg0,
const svalue *arg1)
{
if (arg0->get_type ()
&& arg1->get_type ()
&& op != POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)
{
// FIXME: what ops does this apply to? MULT_EXPR?
gcc_assert (types_compatible_p (arg0->get_type (), arg1->get_type ()));
}
Is there a function to check type-compatibility of the args given a
particular enum tree_code?
Sorry if I'm missing something here
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Valid types for a binary op in GENERIC?
2024-02-14 17:14 Valid types for a binary op in GENERIC? David Malcolm
@ 2024-02-14 17:38 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2024-02-14 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Malcolm; +Cc: gcc
> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:16 schrieb David Malcolm via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>:
>
> The ICE in PR analyzer/111441 is due to this assertion in
> fold_binary_loc failing:
>
> 11722 gcc_assert (TYPE_PRECISION (atype) == TYPE_PRECISION (type));
>
> where code=MULT_EXPR, type=<integer_type 0x7fffea6645e8 int>, and:
>
> (gdb) p type
> $1 = <integer_type 0x7fffea6645e8 int>
> (gdb) p atype
> $2 = <integer_type 0x7fffea6647e0 long unsigned int>
>
> due to the analyzer building a mult_expr node with those types for the
> arguments.
>
> I have a fix for this (by adding some missing casts within the
> analyzer's svalue representation), but it got me wondering: is there a
> way to check valid types for binary operations in GENERIC?
>
> Looking at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Unary-and-Binary-Expressions.html
> I see that for PLUS_EXPR, MINUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR their "operands may
> have either integral or floating type, but there will never be [sic]
> case in which one operand is of floating type and the other is of
> integral type."
>
> Is it the case that for PLUS_EXPR, MINUS_EXPR and MULT_EXPR, their
> arguments *must* have the same precision? Or that types_compatible_p
> is true? What about other binary operations?
>
> FWIW I currently have this hacked-up assertion in my working copy:
>
> const svalue *
> region_model_manager::get_or_create_binop (tree type, enum tree_code op,
> const svalue *arg0,
> const svalue *arg1)
> {
> if (arg0->get_type ()
> && arg1->get_type ()
> && op != POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)
> {
> // FIXME: what ops does this apply to? MULT_EXPR?
> gcc_assert (types_compatible_p (arg0->get_type (), arg1->get_type ()));
> }
>
>
> Is there a function to check type-compatibility of the args given a
> particular enum tree_code?
No. The best source is the GIMPLE verifier in tree-cfg.cc
> Sorry if I'm missing something here
> Dave
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-02-14 17:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-02-14 17:14 Valid types for a binary op in GENERIC? David Malcolm
2024-02-14 17:38 ` Richard Biener
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).