Re: [PATCH]: convert (long)round(d) -> lround(d), etc

[neroden at twcny dot rr dot com (Nathanael Nerode)]

Tom Tromey wrote (in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg01916.html):
>It seems to me that if these types are going to be used by the middle
>end, then we might as well define them in the generic part of gcc.
>And, more generally, I think it would be great if we could write down
>exactly what the middle end expects in terms of defined types, and
>anything else like that, to make writing a front end a more
>well-defined experience.

If we're trying to design this, rather than letting it grow organically,
the standard middle-end types probably ought to be of specific
machine-independent lengths (8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, etc.) rather than the
standard C machine-dependent-meaning types.  I suppose this could create
difficulties with calls into libc, but those are problems which will have
to be dealt with anyway.

Richard Henderson wrote (in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg01952.html):
>That would sort of go hand-in-hand with redefining long_integer_type
>to c_long_integer_type for these middle-end functions.

This renaming is at any rate a good idea, just for clarity's sake.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.