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: RFA: hook doc patch (94/112): TARGET_MIN_DIVISIONS_FOR_RECIP_MUL

Quoting Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
* tm.texi (TARGET_MIN_DIVISIONS_FOR_RECIP_MUL): Fix return type. 
Why do we have "unsigned int" here and not just unsigned?  That is,
the patch improves correctness, but I am wondering whether the code
just shouldn't say unsigned?

If we can get approval for the code change from an appropriate
reviewer, that's fine with me too.

I think you can make that change under the obvious rule. 

Do we have any coding standard or similar that says that
"unsigned" is preferable to "unsigned int"?
FWIW I can't find anything on that topic in the GNU coding standard.

Looking at existing usage in target.h, there are two lines with
a plain "unsigned", but eight with "unsigned int".

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