This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix optimization regression in constant folder
> As we use sizetype for offsets of pointers choosing the size of pointers
> as the size of sizetypes would make sense for the middle-end.
No, because there's no necessary reason why the size of addresses and
the sizes of offsets for addresses are the same! That's true from a
definitional point of view, but also consider some of the mixed 32/64
systems, such as Alpha/VMS. For example, in such a case do you mean
Pmode or ptr_mode? There seems no reason to me to mix these
unrelated concepts (size of pointer and size of size_t). And realize
that ptr_mode (which is most likely what you'd want, is ALSO a
> I still don't see the connection to the signedness of sizetype though.
The range of a type (what values it can hold) is determined by both the
precision and the signedness. size_t and sizetype must have the same range.