This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2001-01-09T11:35:00Z.
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2001-01-09T11:35:00Z.
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:39:18 -0800
- Cc: dje at watson dot ibm dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, 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
- References: <email@example.com> <200101092050.PAA38976@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> <20010109135807.A4380@redhat.com> <20010109141325X.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:13:25PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard> The class of targets for which I consider the patch to be
> Richard> incorrect are 32-bit natives for which there is a runtime
> Richard> selectable 64-bit variant -- PA, MIPS, and PowerPC.
> Why is the patch incorrect for these targets?
Well, not "incorrect" but "undesirable" since it slows them down
compile times unnecessarily. A 32-bit H_W_I is adequate until one
uses one of the target switches that selects the 64-bit variant.
Of course, this highlights that Sparc's solution is really the
best in the short term. Not to support the 64-bit target at all
until the host integer size is wide enough.
> Isn't bitsizetype still 128 bits wide here?
No, bitsizetype is chosen at compiler runtime. It is DImode for
these 32-bit targets.