This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:23:47 +0200
Subject: Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
References: <200805261047.59798.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000805260204u776b667aq3496de8a628b321a@mail.gmail.com>

So my idea (I have this for some time now, but there's always lack
of time to implement it ...) is to make the existing tree codes
'may overflow' operations and introduce new tree code variants
with the 'does not overflow' semantics.  This way we conservatively
preserve 'may overflow' in legacy code.

That seems extremely ugly, especially to make fold-const.c aware of that. It would be better to make the "overflow definition" a flag for a single PLUS_EXPR node (or PLUS rtl).

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Richard Guenther

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