This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wide-int] Add fast path for hosts with HWI widening multiplication
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, ramrad01 at arm dot com, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:48:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: [wide-int] Add fast path for hosts with HWI widening multiplication
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <8761r8kgph dot fsf at talisman dot default> <871u1sdbb6 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <CAJA7tRa8sMQbg==u8srmfRGKpbjA2+cF5c466xAHvpjZB+8_4w at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1405081636260 dot 4990 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <87vbtg2kcq dot fsf at talisman dot default> <536BCECB dot 6070001 at naturalbridge dot com> <87r4442i6v dot fsf at talisman dot default> <CAMe9rOqf4ENro0Dh7RYdW-CeQhQup=utzBaUEc7KVnx_6ifwGQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140508194200 dot GI10386 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:34:28PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Kenneth Zadeck <email@example.com> writes:
>> >> everyone who has a private port will hate you forever. note that i
>> >> have 2 of them.
>> > Got any other ideas though? I suppose if we're prepared to break
>> > compatibility with whatever the upstream of longlong.h is, we could
>> > make more use of intN_t and uintN_t.
>> > Having a whitelist of hosts seems like the best fix though.
>> > I'm not sure the default umul_ppmm is going to be any better
>> > than not defining it.
>> Can you add a configure time check if
>> typedef unsigned int UTItype __attribute__ ((mode (TI)));
>> is supported?
> Why? Isn't that #ifdef __SIZEOF_INT128__ ?
Yes, we can use that. Will it work?