This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Introduce abi_word_mode
- From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell)
- Cc: iant at google dot com (Ian Lance Taylor), geoffk at apple dot com (Geoffrey Keating), Andreas dot Krebbel at de dot ibm dot com (Andreas Krebbel), gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:37:27 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce abi_word_mode
(I apologize for duplicate messages, I used a broken mailer ...)
Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 10/09/2006 11:15:44 PM:
> So, are we converging towards telling Andreas that there is no way to do
> what he wishes? In other words, are going to declare that attribute
> ((mode (word))) is not something that back ends can configure
> independently of BITS_PER_WORD, and that, therefore, if you have 32-bit
> code involving that type, that this binary code cannot be recompiled
> without change to use 64-bit registers?
That would be quite unfortunate. I do hope we can get to a common
understanding of what attribute ((mode (word))) means that does not
preclude this type of optimization, that is not only important for
s390, but also for rs6000 and possibly even for x86_64 ...
What do you think of my current proposal as outlined in my replies to
Richard and Ian?
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux on zSeries Development