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]

HOST_WIDE_INT vs HOST_WIDEST_INT (was Re: x-files must die: rather too much at once)


 > Why do we have both HOST_WIDE_INT and HOST_WIDEST_INT?  It's rather
 > confusing.  This patch may use a different definition for
 > HOST_WIDE_INT than the previous, in certain corner cases; if I
 > understand the semantics correctly - and I'm not saying I do - the
 > old behavior was in error.

I was told HOST_WIDE_INT must never be wider than long for performance
reasons.  IIRC, at the time Jeff quoted some horrible slowdown figure
when he tested setting HOST_WIDE_INT to long long.

So to allow correct 64 bit handling in cpp, we decided to introduce
HOST_WIDEST_INT .  It will be "long long" if plain "long" isn't wide
enough.

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions


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