This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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] |
Hello,Perfect.
Let me put it a different way: I think that you can find a way to avoid touching large parts of the rest of the compiler, and still do what you need to do. I'd rather not be considering whether or not the semantics of build_int_cst ought to change for all callers.Like Joseph, I think (5) should be completely separated from this patch.5) build_int_cst is rewritten to decide whether to sign extend or to zero extend depending on the signedness of the type of the constant, and to mask out bits outside of the precision, which should be what we want most of the time. Few places where this is incorrect should use build_int_csts instead.
The patch to stor-layout.c is unncessary, and should not be included.
the patch to stor-layout is necessary for 5), since otherwise build_int_cst is called before the bitsize of the type is set up.
I will make the function with the chaned semantics local to ivopts for now, although later I would like to come back to the issue.
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC (916) 791-8304 mark@codesourcery.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |