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: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:35:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
References: <200805261047.59798.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000805260204u776b667aq3496de8a628b321a@mail.gmail.com> <m3bq2sfdhk.fsf@google.com> <483C1AD2.80507@gnu.org>

Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> writes:

>> What about -ftrapv?  Add another set of tree codes?  Or just get rid
>> of it?
>
> -ftrapv is easier if it were implemented on the tree level.  You would
> compile with the semantics required by the lowered overflow checks
> (probably -fwrapv, but maybe not) after lowering.

Ah, yes, good idea.

Ian

References:
- Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Revisiting the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE issue
  - From: Paolo Bonzini

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