[PATCH][testsuite]: fix UB in vect-early-break_144-pr125804.c [PR125871]

[Tamar Christina]

The PR reports a failure on -m32 that I can't seem to
reproduce on my x86_64 machine..

However cvise (I gave the compiler as many flags I
could think of to prevent this) did give me a
reproducer that has some UB in it wrt to signed
shifts on 32-bit systems.

So this fixed the UBs and hopefully that fixes
the reported failure.

Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
arm-none-linux-gnueabihf, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
-m32, -m64 and no issues.

Pushed to master.

Thanks,
Tamar

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        PR testsuite/125871
        * gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_144-pr125804.c: New test.

-- inline copy of patch --

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_144-pr125804.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_144-pr125804.c
index 
f8974023ee6a3216042b8656a14f1ac42be32a94..d8deb733f70e742db0a1eba24a63e95c335f3623
 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_144-pr125804.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-early-break_144-pr125804.c
@@ -21,11 +21,11 @@ int g;
 __attribute__((noipa))
 int h(bitmap i) {
   c j = *i->d;
-  unsigned k, l = j.b < 4;
+  unsigned k = 0, l = j.b < 4;
   for (; l < 2; l++) {
     long long m = j.bits[l];
     for (; k < 64; k++) {
-      long long n = (long long)1LL << k;
+      long long n = (long long)(1ull << k);
       if (m & n)
         goto o;
     }
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ int main() {
 
   check_vect ();
 
-  c a;
-  a.bits[0] = 1ull << 63;
+  c a = { 4, { 0, 0 } };
+  a.bits[0] = -0x7fffffffffffffffLL - 1;
   f.d = &a;
   g = h(&f);
   return g == 0;

rb20638.patch
Description: rb20638.patch