This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PATCH RFC: Ensure TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (t)) == t

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: dnovillo at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:49:54 -0700
Subject: Re: PATCH RFC: Ensure TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (t)) == t
References: <m3vefh3dm9.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <84fc9c000704271107j1edb9705xbb58b670e0898ccf@mail.gmail.com>

"Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:

> I think having a consistent type for TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE is a good
> thing to have.  Though it may as well just be type_for_mode ()
> (with or without the respective precision of the type).  With tuples
> we might want to get rid of the type for integer constants completely
> and just store the double_int -- but for now I don't care too much and
> agree that TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (t)) == t is consistent
> (and used also outside of VRP).

Thanks for the feedback.  Patch committed to mainline and 4.2 branch.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH RFC: Ensure TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (t)) == t
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- PATCH RFC: Ensure TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (t)) == t
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: PATCH RFC: Ensure TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (t)) == t
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]