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]

Re: Patch ping

From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>
To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:34:39 +0100
Subject: Re: Patch ping
References: <20060216155808.GA7757@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0602161915270.10180-100000@www.eyesopen.com> <20060217092446.GA18805@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

Similar double word arithmetic routines
are already duplicated in the tree-ssa optimizers.  The middle-end
handling of TREE_OVERFLOW/TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW and representation
of INTEGER_CST, REAL_CST, CONST_INT and CONST_DOUBLE in trees and
RTL are already "weeping sores" in GCC's infrastructure.  Rather
than add another set of hacks, or get embroiled in the inevitable
clean-up, might I recommend using HOST_WIDE_INT pairs for the time
being?

While I agree on the code duplication issues, on the other hand, I like the struct double_int much more than HOST_WIDE_INT pairs.

Don't hold your breath, but if Zdenek's patch goes in I might work on using his struct double_int in fold-const.c as well. That's probably 4.3.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Roger Sayle

References:
- Patch ping
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Roger Sayle
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak

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