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: wide-int, arc

From: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
To: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at embecosm dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:57:58 -0500
Subject: Re: wide-int, arc
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <3D9B9EED-1787-463F-8E6A-1EBCA54598EC at comcast dot net> <CAMqJFCp_R1Bm+kBRvSn5y489O7jUq+NqQXd8tH+HT8=wQ+Wg+A at mail dot gmail dot com>


On 11/23/2013 08:19 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:

On 23 November 2013 19:19, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:

Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through the entire patch.    This patch covers the arc port.

Ok?

wide-int.h says widest_int is always signed, yet the iterations count
in the doloop interface is now unsigned.  So, which is right, the code
or the documentation?

I see that dfp.c and vax.c directly include wide-int.h,
but aarch64.c and arc.c don't.  Is that safe?

if the compiler produced an error message about not finding something,we added the include. It is possible that some of these may beredundant as things have moved around, but safety is not an issue.

Is there a rationale which files directly include wide-int.h and which
ones don't?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: wide-int, arc
  - From: Joern Rennecke

References:
- wide-int, arc
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: wide-int, arc
  - From: Joern Rennecke

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