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]

Re: Patch for incorrect execute/divconst-2.c)


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]