On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:

   OK. The requirement of everything having the same type for the
   check_*_overflow when gccs builtins are not available was mostly a
   consequence of my inability to implement completely type-generic
   versions (but also to enforce some sanity, so people don't do
   check_add_overflow( s8, size_t, int*)). There's no gcc builtin for
   shift, but if it's relatively simple to one allowing a and *d to have
   different types, then why not. It's of course particularly convenient
   to allow a bare "1" (i.e. int) as a while having *d have some random
   type.

Yes

   Wouldn't check_shift_overflow(-1, 4, &someint) just put -16 in someint
   and report no overflow? That's what I'd expect, if negative values are
   to be supported at all.

I would say that is not a desired outcome, bitshift is defined on
bits, if the caller wanted something defined as signed multiply they
should use multiply.

IMHO, nobody writes 'a << b' expecting sign preservation..

   Well, the types you can check at compile-time, the values not, so you
   still have to define the result, i.e. contents of *d, for negative
   values (even if we decide that "overflow" should always be signalled in
   that case).

Why do a need to define a 'result' beyond whatever the not-undefined
behavior shift expression produces?

     What about more like this?
               check_shift_overflow(a, s, d) ({
                   // Shift is always performed on the machine's largest
     unsigned
                   u64 _a = a;
                   typeof(s) _s = s;
                   typeof(d) _d = d;
                   // Make s safe against UB
                   unsigned int _to_shift = _s >= 0 && _s < 8*sizeof(*d) : _s ? 0;
                   *_d = (_a << _to_shift);
                    // s is malformed
                   (_to_shift != _s ||
                    // d is a signed type and became negative
                    *_d < 0 ||
                    // a is a signed type and was negative
                    _a < 0 ||
                    // Not invertable means a was truncated during
     shifting
                    (*_d >> _to_shift) != a))
               })
     I'm not seeing a UB with this?

   Something like that might work, but you're not there yet. In
   particular, your test for whether a is negative is thwarted by using
   u64 for _a and testing _a < 0...

Oops, yes that was intended to be 'a', and of course we need to
capture it..

Leon? Seems like agreement, Can you work with this version?

#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <assert.h>

#define u64 uint64_t

/*
 * Compute *d = (a << s)
 *
 * Returns true if '*d' cannot hold the result or 'a << s' doesn't make sense.
 * - 'a << s' causes bits to be lost when stored in d
 * - 's' is garbage (eg negative) or so large that a << s is guarenteed to be 0
 * - 'a' is negative
 * - 'a << s' sets the sign bit, if any, in '*d'
 * *d is not defined if false is returned.
 */
#define check_shift_overflow(a, s, d)                                          \
	({                                                                     \
		typeof(a) _a = a;                                              \
		typeof(s) _s = s;                                              \
		typeof(d) _d = d;                                              \
		u64 _a_full = _a;                                              \
		unsigned int _to_shift =                                       \
			_s >= 0 && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0;               \
                                                                               \
		*_d = (_a_full << _to_shift);                                  \
                                                                               \
		(_to_shift != _s || *_d < 0 || _a < 0 ||                       \
		 (*_d >> _to_shift) != a);                                     \
	})

int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
	int32_t s32;
	uint32_t u32;

	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 0, &s32) == false && s32 == (1 << 0));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 1, &s32) == false && s32 == (1 << 1));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 30, &s32) == false && s32 == (1 << 30));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 31, &s32) == true);
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 32, &s32) == true);
	assert(check_shift_overflow(-1, 1, &s32) == true);
	assert(check_shift_overflow(-1, 0, &s32) == true);

	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 0, &u32) == false && u32 == (1 << 0));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 1, &u32) == false && u32 == (1 << 1));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 30, &u32) == false && u32 == (1 << 30));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 31, &u32) == false && u32 == (1UL << 31));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(1, 32, &u32) == true);
	assert(check_shift_overflow(-1, 1, &u32) == true);
	assert(check_shift_overflow(-1, 0, &u32) == true);

	assert(check_shift_overflow(0xFFFFFFFF, 0, &u32) == false && u32 == (0xFFFFFFFFUL << 0));
	assert(check_shift_overflow(0xFFFFFFFF, 1, &u32) == true);
	assert(check_shift_overflow(0xFFFFFFFF, 0, &s32) == true);
	assert(check_shift_overflow(0xFFFFFFFF, 1, &s32) == true);
}

Thanks,
Jason