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,MIPS,committed] Fix wrong use of XINT instead of INTVAL


Hi Matthew,

> This issue was caught with assert checking enabled but is not a
> functional bug as XINT(x, 0) happens to overlay INTVAL(x) anyway.

 There's an intriguing difference between XINT (x, 0) and XWINT (x, 0) 
involved here though, which does not appear to be documented in the 
manual, and certainly not in Section 13.3 "Access to Operands" where I'd 
expect it.  I gather it is a matter of the operand being treated as `int' 
vs HOST_WIDE_INT, and that is where the assertion comes from, as these 
data types will necessarily be different for most hosts and cause an issue 
here right away if the host is big-endian.

 Thanks for catching and fixing this!

  Maciej


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