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: [patch] change specific int128 -> generic intN


(oups, the message got stuck in my mailer, should have been sent a while ago)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, DJ Delorie wrote:

Since the check for __STRICT_ANSI__ is removed, do we need to add
__extension__ in front of __GLIBCXX_TYPE_INT_N_0 to avoid warning with
-Wsystem-headers?

I copied the code from the __int128 case, and it explicitly bypassed
-Wsystem-headers...  so we don't have that problem.

Ah... indeed.

That seems complicated. You just need to call emit_support_tinfo_1 on
each of the types (see how fundamentals is used at the end of the
function), no need to put everything in the array.

Sure, *now* you tell me that :-)

Sorry, I should have made that clearer when I introduced emit_support_tinfo_1...

I can do it either way, but it's the same overhead to iterate through
the types.  Shoving it into the array is a bit more future-proof, but
keeping the index in sync is a bit of work if the table ever changes.

We are already going to have a second loop, not on the fundamentals array, calling emit_support_tinfo_1 for __float128 when available, so the array won't be complete anymore. More precisely, it will iterate either on all the types on which register_builtin_type was called or on float modes that don't correspond to float/double/long double (depends on how much they break ARM).

Your choice ;-)

Well, Jason's.

--
Marc Glisse


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