This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: wide-int, ada
- From: pinskia at gmail dot com
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, 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 06:03:33 -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> <CAMe9rOqhkzwRaLTtH2+oxKUEoNJ+1B2pRrwgUJ39LM=vQ1hP+g at mail dot gmail dot com>
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:00 AM, "H.J. Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> Not true for x86 since we have
> HOST_WIDE_INT ix86_isa_flags = TARGET_64BIT_DEFAULT |
> in i386.opt. We need more than 32 bits for ix86_isa_flags.
Then that should be HOST_WIDEST_INT instead.