On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> writes:
> > > if (small_prec)
> > > ;
> > > else if (precision == xprecision)
> > > while (len >= 0 && val[len - 1] == -1)
> > > len--;
> > Err, len > 0 obviously.
> you were only close. patch tested on ppc and committed as revision 203739.
>
> Index: gcc/tree.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/tree.c (revision 203701)
> +++ gcc/tree.c (working copy)
> @@ -1204,7 +1204,7 @@ wide_int_to_tree (tree type, const wide_
> }
>
> wide_int cst = wide_int::from (pcst, prec, sgn);
> - unsigned int len = int (cst.get_len ());
> + unsigned int len = cst.get_len ();
> unsigned int small_prec = prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1);
> bool recanonize = sgn == UNSIGNED
> && small_prec
> Index: gcc/tree.h
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/tree.h (revision 203701)
> +++ gcc/tree.h (working copy)
> @@ -5204,13 +5204,13 @@ wi::int_traits <const_tree>::decompose (
> scratch[len - 1] = sext_hwi (val[len - 1], precision);
> return wi::storage_ref (scratch, len, precision);
> }
> - }
> -
> - if (precision < xprecision + HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
> - {
> - len = wi::force_to_size (scratch, val, len, xprecision, precision,
> UNS
> IGNED);
> - return wi::storage_ref (scratch, len, precision);
> - }
> + }
> + /* We have to futz here because a large unsigned int with
> + precision 128 may look (0x0 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 0xF...) as a
> + tree-cst and as (0xF...) as a wide-int. */
> + else if (precision == xprecision && len == max_len)
> + while (len > 1 && val[len - 1] == (HOST_WIDE_INT)-1)
> + len--;
> }
Err, that now undoes the extra zero word thing? Or was I confused
about the previous code and this "append extra zero word for
MSB set unsigned constants"?
Richard.
