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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Get rid of awkward precision for bitsize types


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> But it would have the same problem, no?
>
> Truncating or not truncating at run time doesn't change anything since we
> pretend that sizetypes don't overflow. ?This worked perfectly before the
> bitfield truncating patch from 2004, it purely pessimized for sizetypes.

If we pretend that sizetypes don't overflow we can as well use the
bigger mode.  Of course I don't believe that non-overflow story for
sizetypes ...

Given the choices I would rather go for DImode bitsizetype here
than add another TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE dependend codepath.

Thus, the patch is ok if it bootstraps & tests on another random
target as well.

Richard.


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