This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: wide-int, ada
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:00:22 -0800
- Subject: Re: wide-int, ada
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <0075C6DB-B432-4E6F-8A48-3AE0C4D842FE at comcast dot net> <1464599 dot QpNUskFgRu at polaris> <5293FE59 dot 6090801 at naturalbridge dot com> <14902105 dot e0dHrA5yuq at polaris> <5294A5AF dot 4080803 at arm dot com> <CAFiYyc0hWZh+9xZd7po=KdhLm2a=jtqfHDnrdPJoqE9+cBmGkQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>>> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the
>>>> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i
>>>> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int is 32.
>>>> I could be wrong about this but if i am correct, what do you want me to do?
>>>
>>> While you're right that most mainstream architectures now require a 64-bit
>>> HWI, not all of them do according to config.gcc, so I don't think that this
>>> path is entirely dead yet. I'll carry out the testing once we agree on the
>>> final change.
>>
>> I'm hoping, once this patch series is in that we might be able to
>> migrate the ARM port back to supporting a 32-bit HWI. The driving
>> factor behind the original switch was supporting 128-bit constants for
>> Neon and these patches should resolve that.
>
> i?86 would be another candidate (if you don't build a compiler with -m64
> support).
Not true for x86 since we have
Variable
HOST_WIDE_INT ix86_isa_flags = TARGET_64BIT_DEFAULT |
TARGET_SUBTARGET_ISA_DEFAULT
in i386.opt. We need more than 32 bits for ix86_isa_flags.
--
H.J.