[fpc-devel] Division nodes

[J. Gareth Moreton]

That's useful to know - thanks Florian.  So it's possible to forego the 
-1 check if no downsizing occurs.

I suppose it makes sense... if we go by the signed 64-bit equivalents, 
$FFFFFFFF80000000 div $FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF = $0000000080000000, which when 
typecast to a LongInt does result in a signed overflow that isn't 
checked without -Co, so the answer is $80000000.  On the flip side, 
$0000000080000000 div $FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF = $FFFFFFFF80000000, which when 
typecast to a LongInt is also equal to $80000000, this time without an 
overflow.  Even though the original operand of $0000000080000000 is out 
of range for a LongInt, it's perfectly fine as an Int64.

If my logic is correct, the -1 check is not needed in the following 
conditions:

* The division is being upsized.
* There is no change in size and neither source is unsigned (e.g. 
Cardinal --> LongInt would require the check).

Currently, as given in my original code example, LongInt(LongInt div 
LongInt) is given the -1 check (assuming Integer = LongInt), and this 
just seems like a waste.  Would you approve this change Florian? (I'll 
also add a comment to explain about the downsizing situation)

Kit

----

On 19/05/2023 21:55, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
> Am 19.05.23 um 21:14 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel:
>> So I need to ask... should the check for a divisor of -1 still be 
>> performed? 
>
> Yes. This is the result of "down sizing" a division. In case of
>
> longint(int64 div int64) can be converted only into longint(int64) div 
> longint(int64) if this check is carried out. longint($80000000 div 
> $ffffffff) must silently result in $8000000 in this case.
>
>> The case of doing "min_int div -1", even with unsigned-to-signed 
>> typecasting, seems very contrived and the programmer should expect 
>> problems if "min_int" and "-1" appear as the operands.  Is there a 
>> specific example where this implicit check is absolutely necessary?  
>> As others have pointed out, silently returning "min_int" as the 
>> answer seems more unexpected (granted this is just the behaviour of 
>> an optimisation that converts the nodes equating to "x div -1" to 
>> "-x", and Intel's NEG instruction doesn't return an error if min_int 
>> is its input operand, but I can't be sure if the same applies to 
>> non-Intel processors and their equivalent instructions).
>>
>> Kit
>>
>> On 17/05/2023 09:51, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
>>> Logically yes, but using 16-bit as an example, min_int is -32,768, 
>>> and signed 16-bit integers range from -32,768 to 32,767. So -32,768 
>>> ÷ -1 = 32,768, which is out of range.  This is where the problem lies.
>>>
>>> Internally, negation involves inverting all of the bits and then 
>>> adding 1 (essentially how you subtract a number using two's 
>>> complement), so min_int, which is 1000000000000000, becomes 
>>> 0111111111111111 and then, after incrementing, 1000000000000000, 
>>> which is min_int again.
>>>
>>> Kit
>>>
>>> On 16/05/2023 13:13, Jean SUZINEAU via fpc-devel wrote:
>>>> Le 16/05/2023 à 01:47, Stefan Glienke via fpc-devel a écrit :
>>>>> min_int div -1
>>>>
>>>> "min_int div -1"  should give  "- min_int" ?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
>>>> https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
>>> https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
>> https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
> https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>