This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] The first patch from the fixed-point branch
- From: Richard Sandiford <richard at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Fu, Chao-Ying" <fu at mips dot com>
- Cc: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Thekkath, Radhika" <radhika at mips dot com>, "Stephens, Nigel" <nigel at mips dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:47:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] The first patch from the fixed-point branch
- References: <3CB54817FDF733459B230DD27C690CEC03EE8ECD@Exchange.mips.com>
"Fu, Chao-Ying" <fu@mips.com> writes:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> > I wonder if GET_MODE_IBITSIZE and GET_MODE_FBITSIZE (or
>> GET_MODE_IBITS
>> > and GET_MODE_FBITS, or GET_MODE_IWIDTH and GET_MODE_FWIDTH) would be
>> > better names? Based on the names alone, I'd have assumed
>> > GET_MODE_[IF]BIT were bit positions rather than widths.
>>
>> From my point of view, I'm OK with either name.
>>
>> If Chao-Ying wants to change to the SIZE variants, that's
>> fine -- but I
>> don't want to create undue work for what's already a large
>> patch series.
>>
>
> The usage of IBIT and FBIT comes from the spec (n1169.pdf)
> that defines ACCUM_FBIT, ACCUM_IBIT and so on in stdfix.h.
> But, I can change them to GET_MODE_IBITS and GET_MODE_FBITS.
Ah, I was only thinking about the assumption I mentioned, and
consistency with gcc's other macros. I hadn't realised the names
were based directly on the spec.
So in that case, never mind. Everyone else seems to be happy with
the names anyway. (Thanks for the patch though.)
Richard