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] |
On 29 May 2000, Geoff Keating wrote: > Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes: > > > Mon May 29 22:41:35 2000 Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> > > > > * varasm.c (immed_double_const): Avoid using const_int to represent > > - (1 << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1). > > This is exactly wrong. CONST_INT must _always_ be used to represent > such values. Hm? Can you tell me how to distinguish - (1 << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) from (1 << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) then, for use in a mode where these numbers have different representation? (Here, DImode vs. SImode.) If it is the *latter* number that should be const_double here, then it seems there are other bugs that makes it "work" the opposite right now. brgds, H-P
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |