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] config.gcc: improve description of need_64bit_hwint


On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Dave Korn wrote:

> Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> 
> > +#                      for this target.  This is true if this target
> > +#                      supports "long" or "wchar_t" wider than 32 bits,
> > +#                       or BITS_PER_WORD is wider than 32 bits.
> 
>   Need to tweak the alignment there before you check it in :)
> 
>   (BTW, isn't this logically the same anyway, since if BITS_PER_WORD (=
> SImode) is > 32 bits, then int must be > 32 bits, and long is necessarily at
> least >= int?  Or can SImode be < BITS_PER_WORD sometimes?  Not that I
> disagree with making the implications explicit for clarity in either case.)

int is nothing to do with SImode, and SImode is nothing to do with 
BITS_PER_WORD.  SImode (if it exists - I don't think it did on c4x) is 
always four times QImode, and QImode's width is BITS_PER_UNIT.  int's 
width is INT_TYPE_SIZE which may be more or less than four times 
BITS_PER_UNIT.  BITS_PER_WORD is a comparatively arbitrary and poorly 
defined value that need have no relation to the C type sizes.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


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