On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:25:49AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:06:39PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > 2017-07-24 Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/
> > > PR rtl-optimization/81423
> > > * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81423.c: New testcase.
> > I think int32plus just indicates ints are at least 32 bits. But a long
> > or long long could still be just 32 bits. so int32plus && long_neq_int,
> > to ensure that long/long long are 64 bits?
>
> Well, long long is required to be 64 bits or more by the C standard.
> But some GCC targets do not follow that, with certain options at least.
>
> It looks like that test actually requires long long to be *exactly*
> 64 bits. I'll modify the test to test for that.
So I came up with the following. Is this okay for trunk? (Tested on
powerpc64-linux and x86_64-linux, both with both -m32 and -m64, and
tested it does fail on x86 without the patches to fix the bug).
Segher
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81423.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81423.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..731aa8f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81423.c
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+extern void abort (void);
+
+unsigned long long int ll = 0;
+unsigned long long int ull1 = 1ULL;
+unsigned long long int ull2 = 12008284144813806346ULL;
+unsigned long long int ull3;
+
+unsigned long long int __attribute__ ((noinline))
+foo (void)
+{
+ ll = -5597998501375493990LL;
+
+ ll = (5677365550390624949L - ll) - (ull1 > 0);
+ unsigned long long int ull3;
+ ull3 = (unsigned int)
+ (2067854353L <<
+ (((ll + -2129105131L) ^ 10280750144413668236ULL) -
+ 10280750143997242009ULL)) >> ((2873442921854271231ULL | ull2)
+ - 12098357307243495419ULL);
+
+ return ull3;
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+ /* We need a long long of exactly 64 bits for this test. */
+ ll--;
+ if (ll != 0xffffffffffffffffULL)
+ return 0;
+
+ ull3 = foo ();
+ if (ull3 != 3998784)
+ abort ();
+ return 0;
+}
