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: wide-int, ada



> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:00 AM, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Then that should be HOST_WIDEST_INT instead. 

Thanks,
Andrew

> 
> -- 
> H.J.


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