This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Use HOST_WIDE_INTs in gcd and least_common_multiple.
- From: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 22:07:10 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use HOST_WIDE_INTs in gcd and least_common_multiple.
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101281735290.23098@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <1296246694-4307-1-git-send-email-sebpop@gmail.com> <AANLkTimT6Ssbmo0hew6t0kg2jb=QwoDCgTRYf7kxJMVo@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101312102290.12205@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 15:05, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Joseph,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your careful review. ?This patch fixes the remaining
>> > problems. ?The patch passed regstrap on amd64-linux. ?Ok for trunk?
>>
>> I don't think adding asserts at this stage (nor including diagnostic-core
>> here in general) is sensible. ?Can't we do without them?
>
Richard, what do you suggest to get this problem solved?
> There are asserts (if not very thorough) in the code being moved from
> omega.c. ?The asserts are probably about the safest part of the large
> series of Graphite patches this is effectively a part of - whether the
> series as a whole was sensible at this stage is another matter.