This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wide-int] Make trees more like rtxes
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:18:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: [wide-int] Make trees more like rtxes
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87txg9cvzc dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1310231057260 dot 11149 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <87eh7cqjsf dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <71DA6B1E-E240-4520-B8E6-3497A8EB3EC9 at comcast dot net>
Mike Stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:00 AM, Richard Sandiford
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> offset_int, max_int, wi::to_offset and wi::to_max sound OK to me.
>> Kenny? Mike?
> Those two names seem reasonable. to_offset should document that these
> are for address offsets (and address constants) exclusively.
Reading this back, I realise "max_int" might sound too similar to INT_MAX.
Maybe we could follow the current HOST_* stuff and use: offset_int, widest_int,
wi::to_offset and wi::to_widest.
Bah. I'm no good at naming stuff...