This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Target FUNCTION_{PRO,EPI}LOGUE question
- To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>
- Subject: Re: Target FUNCTION_{PRO,EPI}LOGUE question
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:11:32 +0100 (BST)
- cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> Would doing the following steps be sufficient to solve the problem(s)?
Since we would want to get rid of the signed/unsigned/precision issues
that keep coming up (values getting the wrong one of sign-extended and
zero-extended), I don't think so - we really need a general integer
representation that keeps track of sign and value. Conceivably the parts
of the exported interface that get used by the rest of the compiler could
be implemented using a fixed-width representation (if the rest of the
compiler only ever needs modulo arithmetic), but unless use of multiple
precision causes performance problems, I think defining clean interfaces
that operate on general integers, and making the rest of the compiler not
care about the internals of the representation, would be better.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk