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)


> I don't understand what the code being external, or the review, has to
> do with anything.  This code is compiled with the same host compiler as
> everything else.

But, precisely, this line of reasoning is barely defensible in my opinion.  If 
you really want to go that route, then let's stop doing comprehensive reviews 
and stop requesting changes to submitted patches in order to make them comply 
with the agreed-upon practices, that would save time for everyone.

> HOST_WIDE_INT is also not very persuasive to me.  We did many things in
> the past that became obsolete as compilers matured.

Why would HOST_WIDE_INT be obsolete?  That's a nice way to abstract the host
and reverting to hardcoded types like 'long long' doesn't seem a progress to 
me.

-- 
Eric Botcazou


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