This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fix powerpc64 g77
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:40:29 +0930
- Subject: Re: Fix powerpc64 g77
- References: <amodra@bigpond.net.au> <200208011725.NAA29388@makai.watson.ibm.com>
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 01:25:11PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Would it be clearer to use INTVAL (x) instead of reconsistuting
> the 64-bit value?
>
> low = INTVAL (x) << (POINTER_SIZE - GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode));
> high = (HOST_WIDE_INT) low >> 32;
> low &= 0xffffffff;
Well, only with other changes to this function. I was writing a
minimal patch. Using the above is rather confusing to someone who
doesn't know that the CONST_DOUBLE case never occurs for integer
constants when HOST_WIDE_INT is 64 bits.
I'm happy to write patches that clean up code, if fact I'd done so
in the first patch I wrote to fix this problem, but I thought your
life as a maintainer would be easier if I separated bug fixes from
code tidying. (And that the patch would go in quicker, with less
discussion. Heh.)
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre