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: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:48:17 +0200
Subject: Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
References: <200805261047.59798.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <200805271222.52958.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000805270328y139dd50fg6ceb8653b12f0c89@mail.gmail.com>

> So my assertion is that if with the proposed scheme we can always
> re-associate, all the optimizations that were asked for for
> TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE types can be applied without making TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE types
> special in the middle-end.  Just the frontend would chose the initial
> kind of operation to note if overflow may happen or not.

OK, thanks for clarifying; yes, I think this would be OK.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

References:
- Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: 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]