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: long long availability in host compiler (Re: constant that doesn't fit in 32bits in alpha.c)


On 06/15/2012 09:12 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:

> Generally speaking, I'd avoid taking anything in libdecnumber as an example.


It's not about example, but the fact that host compilers have been
compiling that code as part of building gcc for years, without anyone
complaining, afaik.  It doesn't matter whether the code pointed at
is the ugliest or most beautiful code on earth.  What matters is whether
it uses long long unconditionally on all hosts or not.
IOW, what are the still supported hosts/compilers that don't
support "long long"?  If there are any, it appears none has been used
in at least the past 5 years, IIU the code correctly.


(This is not just an unfounded, OOC, question.  We just recently
went through the exercise of coming up with an interface for an include/
header,

 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01424.html
 http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-05/msg00344.html

where we had some back and forth on the use of long long.  After all that,
we ended up finding that libdecnumber uses long long unconditionally,
<http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-05/msg01078.html>
so in practice, GDB has been relying on "long long" existing for as long as
libdecnumber has been used in GDB.  The same should hold true for gcc.)

-- 
Pedro Alves


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