This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
HOST_WIDE_INT vs HOST_WIDEST_INT (was Re: x-files must die: rather too much at once)
- To: zackw at Stanford dot EDU
- Subject: HOST_WIDE_INT vs HOST_WIDEST_INT (was Re: x-files must die: rather too much at once)
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:45:07 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 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