Re: Change double_int calls to new interface.

[Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:

> On 9/5/12, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> > The tmin.cmp (tmax, uns) > 0 kind of things look odd - definitely
> > methods like tmin.gt (tmax, uns) would be nice to have.  Or even
> > better, get rid of the 'uns' parameters and provide a
> >
> > struct double_int_with_signedness {
> >   double_int val;
> >   bool uns;
> > };
> >
> > struct double_uint : double_int_with_signedness {
> >   double_uint (double_int);
> > };
> >
> > ...
> >
> > and comparison operators which take double_uint/sint.
>
> It would, I think, be better to have separate signed and unsigned
> types.  That change was significantly structural, and I don't know
> where the wide_int work sits in relation to that choice.

Note that in tree-vrp.c, if I remember correctly, I used both signed and
unsigned operations on the same object (emulating arbitrary precision is
a pain).

--
Marc Glisse