This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2001-01-09T11:35:00Z.
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2001-01-09T11:35:00Z.
- From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:20:44 -0500
- cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, grahams at redhat dot com, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, mhayes at redhat dot com, neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk, osk at hem dot passagen dot se, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
>>>>> Richard Henderson writes:
Richard> But it is also not acceptable to slow down a native 32-bit ppc-linux
Richard> compiler by forcing it to do multi-word arithmetic when it is not
Richard> necessary.
It's not just slowing down a 32-bit target, it is slowing down a
32x64 cross when the developer does not want it.
Deciding that GCC must / should use the target width as CONST_INT,
regardless of the host width, is not a decision to be made lightly.
Because cross-compilers always are built with GCC, which does support
64-bit "long long" on 32-bit hosts, we could make that a requirement.
That essentially is what your patch does. I don't want that decision to
be made implicitly.
Are you going to allow / require that 64-bit targets only need to
handle CONST_INT and not CONST_DOUBLE? This line of reasoning can have
far-reaching consequences.
David