This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Change double_int calls to new interface.
On 9/5/12, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> On 9/5/12, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>>> The tmin.cmp (tmax, uns) > 0 kind of things look odd - definitely
>>> methods like tmin.gt (tmax, uns) would be nice to have. Or even
>>> better, get rid of the 'uns' parameters and provide a
>>>
>>> struct double_int_with_signedness {
>>> double_int val;
>>> bool uns;
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct double_uint : double_int_with_signedness {
>>> double_uint (double_int);
>>> };
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> and comparison operators which take double_uint/sint.
>>
>> It would, I think, be better to have separate signed and unsigned
>> types. That change was significantly structural, and I don't know
>> where the wide_int work sits in relation to that choice.
>
> Note that in tree-vrp.c, if I remember correctly, I used both signed and
> unsigned operations on the same object (emulating arbitrary precision is
> a pain).
Presumably the wide_int work will address that issue.
--
Lawrence Crowl