This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: basic_block index negative?

To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: basic_block index negative?
From: Daniel Egger <degger at fhm dot edu>
Date: 17 Oct 2001 18:23:00 +0200
Cc: GCC Mailinglist <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
References: <1003321482.21926.4.camel@sonja><20011017111155.E15568@tornado.cygnus.com> <1003333053.1084.1.camel@sonja><20011017134647.A18973@tornado.cygnus.com> <1003334117.1285.7.camel@sonja> <20011017141245.A19275@tornado.cygnus.com>

Am Mit, 2001-10-17 um 20.12 schrieb 1003342365:

> Even if you didn't allow negative indices, reverse traversals are
> important.

Sure they are.

> Making the index unsigned would make them more interesting
> than they need to be.
 
... however that wasn't my point. :) There are enough places where
unsigned int could be used but are signed ints. :)

-- 
Servus,
       Daniel

References:
- basic_block index negative?
  - From: Daniel Egger
- Re: basic_block index negative?
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: basic_block index negative?
  - From: Daniel Egger
- Re: basic_block index negative?
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: basic_block index negative?
  - From: Daniel Egger
- Re: basic_block index negative?
  - From: Diego Novillo

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