wide-int: Fix mul_internal overflow handling [PR113753]

  Hi!

As the following testcases show, the overflow (needs_overflow) and high
handling in wi::mul_internal seem to only work correctly for either
small precisions (less than or equal to 32, that is handled by earlier
simpler code, not the full Knuth's multiplication algorithm) or for
precisions which are multiple of HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, so it happened
to work fine in most pre-_BitInt era types (and for large bitfields we
probably didn't have good coverage or were lucky and nothing was asking
if there was overflow or not; I think high multiplication is typically
used only when we have optab in corresponding mode).
E.g. on the gcc.dg/bitint-87.c testcase, there were overflow warnings
emitted only the the / 2wb * 3wb _BitInt(128) cases, but not in the
other precisions.

I found 3 issues when prec > HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT and
(prec % HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) != 0:
1) the checking for overflow was simply checking the values of the
   r array members from half_blocks_needed to 2 * half_blocks_needed - 1,
   for UNSIGNED overflow checking if any of them is non-zero, for
   SIGNED comparing them if any is different from top where top is computed
   from the sign bit of the result (see below); similarly, the highpart
   multiplication simply picks the half limbs at r + half_blocks_needed
   offset; and furthermore, for SIGNED there is an adjustment if either
   operand was negative which also just walks r half-limbs from
   half_blocks_needed onwards;
   this works great for precisions like 64 or 128, but for precisions like
   129, 159, 160 or 161 doesn't, it would need to walk the bits in the
   half-limbs starting right above the most significant bit of the base
   precision; that can be up to a whole half-limb and all but one bit from
   the one below it earlier
2) as the comment says, the multiplication is originally done as unsigned
   multiplication, with adjustment of the high bits which subtracts the
   other operand once:
      if (wi::neg_p (op1))
        {
          b = 0;
          for (i = 0; i < half_blocks_needed; i++)
            {
              t = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)r[i + half_blocks_needed]
                - (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)v[i] - b;
              r[i + half_blocks_needed] = t & HALF_INT_MASK;
              b = t >> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1);
            }
        }
   and similarly for the other one.  Now, this also only works nicely if
   a negative operand has just a single sign bit set in the given precision;
   but we were unpacking the operands with wi_unpack (..., SIGNED);, so
   say for the negative operand in 129-bit precision, that means the least
   significant bit of u[half_blocks_needed - 2] (or v instead of u depending
   on which argument it is) is the set sign bit, but then there are 31
   further copies of the sign bit in u[half_blocks_needed - 2] and
   further 32 copies in u[half_blocks_needed - 1]; the above adjustment
   for signed operands doesn't really do the right job in such cases, it
   would need to subtract many more times the other operand
3) the computation of top for SIGNED
          top = r[(half_blocks_needed) - 1];
          top = SIGN_MASK (top << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT / 2));
          top &= mask;
   also uses the most significant bit which fits into prec of the result
   only if prec is multiple of HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, otherwise we need
   to look at a different bit and sometimes it can be also a bit in
   r[half_blocks_needed - 2]

For 1), while for UNSIGNED overflow it could be fairly easy to check
the bits above prec in r half-limbs for being non-zero, doing all the
shifts also in the SIGNED adjustment code in 2 further locations and finally
for the high handling (unless we want to assert one doesn't do the highpart
multiply for such precisions) would be quite ugly and hard to maintain, so
I instead chose (implemented in the second hunk) to shift the
beyond-precision bits up such that the expectations of the rest of the
code are met, that is the LSB of r[half_blocks_needed] after adjustment
is the bit immediately above the precision, etc.  We don't need to care
about the bits it shifts out, because the multiplication will yield at most
2 * prec bits.

For 2), the patch changes the wi_unpack argument from SIGNED to UNSIGNED,
so that we get all zero bits above the precision.

And finally for 3) it does shifts and perhaps picks lower r half-limb so
that it uses the actual MSB of the result within prec.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, and additionally
tested with
make check-gcc -k -j32 GCC_TEST_RUN_EXPENSIVE=1 RUNTESTFLAGS="GCC_TEST_RUN_EXPENSIVE=1 dg-torture.exp=*bitint*"
Ok for trunk?

2024-02-06  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR tree-optimization/113753
	* wide-int.cc (wi::mul_internal): Unpack op1val and op2val with
	UNSIGNED rather than SIGNED.  If high or needs_overflow and prec is
	not a multiple of HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, shift left bits above prec
	so that they start with r[half_blocks_needed] lowest bit.  Fix up
	computation of top mask for SIGNED.

	* gcc.dg/torture/bitint-56.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/bitint-87.c: New test.


	Jakub
  

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> As the following testcases show, the overflow (needs_overflow) and high
> handling in wi::mul_internal seem to only work correctly for either
> small precisions (less than or equal to 32, that is handled by earlier
> simpler code, not the full Knuth's multiplication algorithm) or for
> precisions which are multiple of HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, so it happened
> to work fine in most pre-_BitInt era types (and for large bitfields we
> probably didn't have good coverage or were lucky and nothing was asking
> if there was overflow or not; I think high multiplication is typically
> used only when we have optab in corresponding mode).
> E.g. on the gcc.dg/bitint-87.c testcase, there were overflow warnings
> emitted only the the / 2wb * 3wb _BitInt(128) cases, but not in the
> other precisions.
> 
> I found 3 issues when prec > HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT and
> (prec % HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) != 0:
> 1) the checking for overflow was simply checking the values of the
>    r array members from half_blocks_needed to 2 * half_blocks_needed - 1,
>    for UNSIGNED overflow checking if any of them is non-zero, for
>    SIGNED comparing them if any is different from top where top is computed
>    from the sign bit of the result (see below); similarly, the highpart
>    multiplication simply picks the half limbs at r + half_blocks_needed
>    offset; and furthermore, for SIGNED there is an adjustment if either
>    operand was negative which also just walks r half-limbs from
>    half_blocks_needed onwards;
>    this works great for precisions like 64 or 128, but for precisions like
>    129, 159, 160 or 161 doesn't, it would need to walk the bits in the
>    half-limbs starting right above the most significant bit of the base
>    precision; that can be up to a whole half-limb and all but one bit from
>    the one below it earlier
> 2) as the comment says, the multiplication is originally done as unsigned
>    multiplication, with adjustment of the high bits which subtracts the
>    other operand once:
>       if (wi::neg_p (op1))
>         {
>           b = 0;
>           for (i = 0; i < half_blocks_needed; i++)
>             {
>               t = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)r[i + half_blocks_needed]
>                 - (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)v[i] - b;
>               r[i + half_blocks_needed] = t & HALF_INT_MASK;
>               b = t >> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1);
>             }
>         }
>    and similarly for the other one.  Now, this also only works nicely if
>    a negative operand has just a single sign bit set in the given precision;
>    but we were unpacking the operands with wi_unpack (..., SIGNED);, so
>    say for the negative operand in 129-bit precision, that means the least
>    significant bit of u[half_blocks_needed - 2] (or v instead of u depending
>    on which argument it is) is the set sign bit, but then there are 31
>    further copies of the sign bit in u[half_blocks_needed - 2] and
>    further 32 copies in u[half_blocks_needed - 1]; the above adjustment
>    for signed operands doesn't really do the right job in such cases, it
>    would need to subtract many more times the other operand
> 3) the computation of top for SIGNED
>           top = r[(half_blocks_needed) - 1];
>           top = SIGN_MASK (top << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT / 2));
>           top &= mask;
>    also uses the most significant bit which fits into prec of the result
>    only if prec is multiple of HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, otherwise we need
>    to look at a different bit and sometimes it can be also a bit in
>    r[half_blocks_needed - 2]
> 
> For 1), while for UNSIGNED overflow it could be fairly easy to check
> the bits above prec in r half-limbs for being non-zero, doing all the
> shifts also in the SIGNED adjustment code in 2 further locations and finally
> for the high handling (unless we want to assert one doesn't do the highpart
> multiply for such precisions) would be quite ugly and hard to maintain, so
> I instead chose (implemented in the second hunk) to shift the
> beyond-precision bits up such that the expectations of the rest of the
> code are met, that is the LSB of r[half_blocks_needed] after adjustment
> is the bit immediately above the precision, etc.  We don't need to care
> about the bits it shifts out, because the multiplication will yield at most
> 2 * prec bits.
> 
> For 2), the patch changes the wi_unpack argument from SIGNED to UNSIGNED,
> so that we get all zero bits above the precision.
> 
> And finally for 3) it does shifts and perhaps picks lower r half-limb so
> that it uses the actual MSB of the result within prec.
> 
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, and additionally
> tested with
> make check-gcc -k -j32 GCC_TEST_RUN_EXPENSIVE=1 RUNTESTFLAGS="GCC_TEST_RUN_EXPENSIVE=1 dg-torture.exp=*bitint*"
> Ok for trunk?

OK.

Thanks,
Richard.

> 2024-02-06  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR tree-optimization/113753
> 	* wide-int.cc (wi::mul_internal): Unpack op1val and op2val with
> 	UNSIGNED rather than SIGNED.  If high or needs_overflow and prec is
> 	not a multiple of HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, shift left bits above prec
> 	so that they start with r[half_blocks_needed] lowest bit.  Fix up
> 	computation of top mask for SIGNED.
> 
> 	* gcc.dg/torture/bitint-56.c: New test.
> 	* gcc.dg/bitint-87.c: New test.
> 
> --- gcc/wide-int.cc.jj	2024-02-06 08:43:15.069885709 +0100
> +++ gcc/wide-int.cc	2024-02-06 10:29:18.137373518 +0100
> @@ -1483,8 +1483,8 @@ wi::mul_internal (HOST_WIDE_INT *val, co
>      }
>  
>    /* We do unsigned mul and then correct it.  */
> -  wi_unpack (u, op1val, op1len, half_blocks_needed, prec, SIGNED);
> -  wi_unpack (v, op2val, op2len, half_blocks_needed, prec, SIGNED);
> +  wi_unpack (u, op1val, op1len, half_blocks_needed, prec, UNSIGNED);
> +  wi_unpack (v, op2val, op2len, half_blocks_needed, prec, UNSIGNED);
>  
>    /* The 2 is for a full mult.  */
>    memset (r, 0, half_blocks_needed * 2
> @@ -1503,6 +1503,28 @@ wi::mul_internal (HOST_WIDE_INT *val, co
>        r[j + half_blocks_needed] = k;
>      }
>  
> +  unsigned int shift;
> +  if ((high || needs_overflow) && (shift = prec % HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) != 0)
> +    {
> +      /* The high or needs_overflow code assumes that the high bits
> +	 only appear from r[half_blocks_needed] up to
> +	 r[half_blocks_needed * 2 - 1].  If prec is not a multiple
> +	 of HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT, shift the bits above prec up
> +	 to make that code simple.  */
> +      if (shift == HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT)
> +	memmove (&r[half_blocks_needed], &r[half_blocks_needed - 1],
> +		 sizeof (r[0]) * half_blocks_needed);
> +      else
> +	{
> +	  unsigned int skip = shift < HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT;
> +	  if (!skip)
> +	    shift -= HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT;
> +	  for (i = 2 * half_blocks_needed - 1; i >= half_blocks_needed; i--)
> +	    r[i] = ((r[i - skip] << (-shift % HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT))
> +		    | (r[i - skip - 1] >> shift));
> +	}
> +    }
> +
>    /* We did unsigned math above.  For signed we must adjust the
>       product (assuming we need to see that).  */
>    if (sgn == SIGNED && (high || needs_overflow))
> @@ -1543,8 +1565,12 @@ wi::mul_internal (HOST_WIDE_INT *val, co
>  	top = 0;
>        else
>  	{
> -	  top = r[(half_blocks_needed) - 1];
> -	  top = SIGN_MASK (top << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT / 2));
> +	  top = r[half_blocks_needed - 1
> +		  - ((-prec % HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
> +		     >= HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT)];
> +	  top = SIGN_MASK (((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) top)
> +			   << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT / 2
> +			       + (-prec % HOST_BITS_PER_HALF_WIDE_INT)));
>  	  top &= mask;
>  	}
>  
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/bitint-56.c.jj	2024-02-06 08:53:45.584120553 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/bitint-56.c	2024-02-06 08:53:45.584120553 +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/113753 */
> +/* { dg-do run { target bitint } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -pedantic-errors" } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! run_expensive_tests }  { "*" } { "-O0" "-O2" } } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { ! run_expensive_tests } { "-flto" } { "" } } */
> +
> +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 129
> +unsigned _BitInt(128)
> +foo (unsigned u, unsigned _BitInt(128) a, unsigned _BitInt(128) b)
> +{
> +  unsigned _BitInt(129) m = a % b;
> +  return u * m / u;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +int
> +main ()
> +{
> +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 129
> +  if (foo (0xfa637c33, 0x37af7fe8b0000000000000000wb,
> +	   0xfffffffff0000000000000000wb)
> +      != 0x16f7e93f6d726b38b38d0b753wb)
> +    __builtin_abort ();
> +#endif
> +}
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-87.c.jj	2024-01-13 00:05:00.077372302 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-87.c	2024-02-06 10:41:33.403167442 +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/113753 */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target bitint575 } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-std=gnu23" } */
> +
> +_BitInt(161) a = 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975wb / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(160) b = 730750818665451459101842416358141509827966271487wb / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(159) c = 365375409332725729550921208179070754913983135743wb / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(129) d = 340282366920938463463374607431768211455wb / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(128) e = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727wb / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(161) f = (-1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(160) g = (-730750818665451459101842416358141509827966271487wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(159) h = (-365375409332725729550921208179070754913983135743wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(129) i = (-340282366920938463463374607431768211455wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(128) j = (-170141183460469231731687303715884105727wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 2wb;
> +_BitInt(161) k = 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975wb / 2wb * 3wb;		/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(161\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(160) l = 730750818665451459101842416358141509827966271487wb / 2wb * 3wb;		/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(160\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(159) m = 365375409332725729550921208179070754913983135743wb / 2wb * 3wb;		/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(159\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(129) n = 340282366920938463463374607431768211455wb / 2wb * 3wb;				/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(129\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(128) o = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727wb / 2wb * 3wb;				/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(128\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(161) p = (-1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 3wb;	/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(161\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(160) q = (-730750818665451459101842416358141509827966271487wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 3wb;	/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(160\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(159) r = (-365375409332725729550921208179070754913983135743wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 3wb;	/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(159\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(129) s = (-340282366920938463463374607431768211455wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 3wb;		/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(129\\\)' results in" } */
> +_BitInt(128) t = (-170141183460469231731687303715884105727wb - 1wb) / 2wb * 3wb;		/* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression of type '_BitInt\\\(128\\\)' results in" } */
> 
> 	Jakub
> 
>