Hi! As mentioned in https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2026-August/179946.html there are two spots which use unnecessarily larger _BitInt types on the rhs of comparisons.
This patch fixes it. Tested on x86_64-linux, committed to trunk as obvious. 2026-08-24 Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> * gcc.dg/builtin-stdc-bit-1.c (main): Fix two pastos. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtin-stdc-bit-1.c.jj 2026-03-27 10:17:16.877285978 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtin-stdc-bit-1.c 2026-08-24 21:21:52.869918087 +0200 @@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ main () || __builtin_stdc_bit_floor (~(unsigned _BitInt(373)) 0) != ((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 1) << (373 - 1)) __builtin_abort (); if (__builtin_stdc_bit_floor (((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 511) << 405) != (((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 256) << 405) - || __builtin_stdc_bit_floor (((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 512) << 242) != (((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 512) << 242)) + || __builtin_stdc_bit_floor (((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 512) << 242) != (((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 512) << 242)) __builtin_abort (); if (__builtin_stdc_bit_ceil ((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 0) != 1 || !expr_has_type (__builtin_stdc_bit_ceil ((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 0), unsigned _BitInt(512)) @@ -905,7 +905,7 @@ main () || __builtin_stdc_bit_ceil ((~(unsigned _BitInt(373)) 0) >> 1) != ((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 1) << (373 - 1)) __builtin_abort (); if (__builtin_stdc_bit_ceil (((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 512) << 405) != (((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 512) << 405) - || __builtin_stdc_bit_ceil (((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 513) << 242) != (((unsigned _BitInt(512)) 1024) << 242)) + || __builtin_stdc_bit_ceil (((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 513) << 242) != (((unsigned _BitInt(373)) 1024) << 242)) __builtin_abort (); if (__builtin_stdc_bit_floor ((unsigned _BitInt(__BITINT_MAXWIDTH__)) 0) != 0) __builtin_abort (); Jakub
