This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: long long availability in host compiler (Re: constant that doesn't fit in 32bits in alpha.c)
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, Jay K <jay dot krell at cornell dot edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:11:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: long long availability in host compiler (Re: constant that doesn't fit in 32bits in alpha.c)
- References: <COL101-W6492A808E1395EB8CB5B76E6F00@phx.gbl> <201206152053.31356.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <87aa04s80v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
> 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