This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [GSoC] generation of Gimple loops with empty bodies
- From: Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser dot es>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail dot com>, Mircea Namolaru <mircea dot namolaru at inria dot fr>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:19:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: [GSoC] generation of Gimple loops with empty bodies
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140712101339 dot BF8C3105 at mailhost dot lps dot ens dot fr> <CABGF_gdnkzJ9a7OfVQnD9xVjvwt6t0mofhy-wjkECSCtVmKt2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <53C29C5A dot 1070808 at grosser dot es> <CABGF_gcb3H2z6nc_n4nEY32rXajhO_jk4ZOf1D0dW8MR92MDcQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <53C54C7E dot 5050102 at grosser dot es> <CAFiYyc1LoP1VDX57CmV_mdULBAObGzvmwtJ1zQxOA78HDbHSKA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 16/07/2014 11:40, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Tobias Grosser <email@example.com> wrote:
This is not a patch review, lets move this to firstname.lastname@example.org.
On 15/07/2014 17:03, Roman Gareev wrote:
I've found out that int128_integer_type_node and
long_long_integer_type_node are NULL at the moment of definition of
the graphite_expression_size_type. Maybe we should use
long_long_integer_type_node, because, as you said before, using of
signed 64 has also been proved to be very robust. What do you think
I do not fully understand this message. You first say that
long_long_integer_type_node is NULL, but then want to use this. This does
not seem to be a solution. Most likely it is the solution, but the problem
description makes it hard to understand it. Is the problem
caused by initialization order issues? Or why are such types NULL?
Because they are not available on all targets or for all languages.
I suggest you use the largest available integer mode via
mode = mode_for_size (MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE, MODE_INT, 0);
type = build_nonstandard_integer_type (GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode), );
Roman, can you give this a shot?