This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] c++ify sreal
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Trevor Saunders <tsaunders at mozilla dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:08:24 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] c++ify sreal
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFULd4YfYZSNpwXjAD-e5Z+p-yMvO0Msji36X3nWsjdzdwMDkQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20141111081157 dot GY5026 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 11 dot 1411111019390 dot 1640 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 08:51:41AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>>>>> do $subject, and cleanup for always 64 bit hwi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bootstrapped + regtested x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, ok?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. Can you please replace remaining HOST_WIDE_INT
>>>>> vestiges in there with [u]int64_t please?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This patch breaks the build on debian 6.0:
>>>>
>>>> ../../gcc/sreal.c: In member function Äint64_t sreal::to_int() constÄ:
>>>> ../../gcc/sreal.c:159: error: ÄINT64_MAXÄ was not declared in this scope
>>>
>>>
>>> Index: system.h
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- system.h (revision 217338)
>>> +++ system.h (working copy)
>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>> event inttypes.h gets pulled in by another header it is already
>>> defined. */
>>> #define __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS
>>> +#define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS
>>>
>>> /* We must include stdarg.h before stdio.h. */
>>> #include <stdarg.h>
>>
>>
>> Still, I don't believe it will be portable everywhere.
>> Can't you use
>> INTTYPE_MAXIMUM (int64_t) instead of INT64_MAX? We already use that
>> in GCC...
>
>
> We could also start using the standard C++ mechanism (numeric_limits).
Except int64_t does not have to be defined for a C++ implementation.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> (nothing wrong with INTTYPE_MAXIMUM, just an alternative)
>
> --
> Marc Glisse