Re: CVS-19981209: Patch for "unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" on Solaris2.6

[Paul Eggert <eggert at twinsun dot com>]

   Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 00:48:09 -0700
   From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>

     > and then use `unsigned_HOST_WIDE_INT' uniformly in the code.  (If you
     > prefer some other name like HOST_WIDE_UINT then we could use that
     > instead.)

   Are you going to convert all the code to use the new scheme?  What
   about front ends like Ada and Pascal which we do not control.

It's a trivial change, and any errors will be caught at compile-time.
(If the spelling is unsigned_HOST_WIDE_INT we needn't even change the
layout.  :-)

   Do you really want all those HOST_WIDE_INT calculations in the
   compiler to be done with long long types?

In the case of cpp, absolutely.  Having HOST_WIDE_INT be `long' breaks
cpp in several common cases (including GNU/Linux x86); it no longer
handles long long constants correctly.

For cc1 I doubt whether long long hurts performance much, but I
wouldn't mind someone measuring the performance difference.

   I fixed a mountain of these problems for egcs when working on a
   port that needed HOST_WIDE_INT to be a long long.

Those fixes should be propagated into gcc.  Clearly gcc should not
assume that HOST_WIDE_INT is `long'.