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: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.

From: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Lawrence Crowl <crowl at google dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:03:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
References: <506C72C7 dot 7090207 at naturalbridge dot com> <512D686B dot 90000 at naturalbridge dot com> <CAFiYyc3fXewAW2dU6-RHLiTQ-ZiLgdWmfwdFF6k1VqxPsrvZbQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <515B16EB dot 5020303 at naturalbridge dot com> <CAFiYyc2qWwDcqzCMpMSiQ72w5ry=a3ZpxkFkiK7OvvBA0h4eGw at mail dot gmail dot com> <515C1AFB dot 3080105 at naturalbridge dot com> <CAFiYyc12qGj92j+5yCUEpghOZXqjjAgOzS_H6QJpKvd-dyfU0A at mail dot gmail dot com> <515C55D7 dot 7020003 at naturalbridge dot com> <CAFiYyc0sp1wbq1J+FXoJWcb9UcsOWiwjJ_KaQkbbgCnddxhVzA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5161AA07 dot 7090706 at naturalbridge dot com> <CAFiYyc1QArda2jm56=eT_ugqX39m4tW=gf7FCowuruq-xOdQGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5162BB64 dot 3070007 at naturalbridge dot com> <CAGqM8fYKvS6uNW3smZBUQcWZHtqUzR5yD-dkh3Zvkn7mALKVbQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc0Cj6=M1__GWs9KsFcTfMJGDV9E74gdrzZsus6N0nbX7g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGqM8fZ7NxiMnC6PTA8v6w_E6ZJ5HbjhJXzh-HAOJqaSx+7rnw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc2AqFNmWLu7bOS5_6j56bbMd9pXTY4eAAK=bc-0B-O2-w at mail dot gmail dot com> <3B703871-BBA9-4E79-A9D8-A239BEA9709A at comcast dot net>

On 04/10/2013 12:02 PM, Mike Stump wrote:

On Apr 10, 2013, at 12:38 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, I think we want to test ~(T)0<(T)0 here.

Thanks Lawrence, in the next version of the patch, you will discover this at the bottom if you look hard.  :-)

actually closer to the middle.

References:
- Re: patch to fix constant math - 4th patch - the wide-int class - patch ping for the next stage 1
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: patch to fix constant math - 4th patch - the wide-int class - patch ping for the next stage 1
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: patch to fix constant math - 4th patch - the wide-int class - patch ping for the next stage 1
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: patch to fix constant math - 4th patch - the wide-int class - patch ping for the next stage 1
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: patch to fix constant math - 4th patch - the wide-int class - patch ping for the next stage 1
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: patch to fix constant math - 4th patch - the wide-int class - patch ping for the next stage 1
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: patch to fix constant math - 4th patch - the wide-int class - patch ping for the next stage 1
  - From: Richard Biener
- Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
  - From: Lawrence Crowl
- Re: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: Comments on the suggestion to use infinite precision math for wide int.
  - From: Mike Stump

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