This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-10-29), Stage 1 to end soon
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:16:20 +0000
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-10-29), Stage 1 to end soon
- References: <20121029175642.GK1752@tucnak.redhat.com> <5090410F.5010801@naturalbridge.com> <CAFiYyc1go51+Srjy9erkBBC+o-MC5U08S23e6A6vNuE9BxOgvg@mail.gmail.com> <877gq73qsm.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <50912B52.60207@naturalbridge.com> <20121031135508.GI1752@tucnak.redhat.com> <5091300A.9020101@naturalbridge.com> <20121031142743.GK1752@tucnak.redhat.com> <50916BB1.1050507@naturalbridge.com> <50926EB3.8030604@naturalbridge.com> <87pq3x1nbm.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com>
Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> writes:
> As is probably obvious, I don't agree FWIW. It seems like an unnecessary
> complication without any clear use. Especially since the number of
> significant HWIs in a wide_int isn't always going to be the same for
> both operands to a binary operation, and it's not clear to me whether
> that should be handled in the base class or wide_int.
...and the number of HWIs in the result might be different again.
Whether that's true depends on the value as well as the (HWI) size
of the operands.
Richard