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: [RFC] HOST_WIDE_INT transition steps


Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> writes:
> The following is my current idea on progressing on the HOST_WIDE_INT
> removal
>
> 1) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00381.html (ping)
>
> 2) make sure [u]int64_t is available and use that to define HOST_WIDE_INT
>
> 3) s/HOST_WIDE_INT/int64_t/ (same for unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)
>
> Leaves us with HOST_WIDEST_INT (just use [u]int64_t, I don't think
> we care for 128bit types).

All sounds good to me FWIW.

There'll probably be plenty of references to "HWI", "hwint", etc.
as well...

> And HOST_WIDEST_FAST_INT for which
> I don't have a very good suggestion other than either keeping
> it, unconditionally using 'long' (thus simply remove
> use_long_long_for_widest_fast_int and handling).  The fast_[u]int64_t
> types and friends don't seem to be very "useful".

long isn't very good for ABIs like x86_64 x32 and MIPS n32, where the
registers are wider than long.

I don't see anything wrong with leaving it for now.  If we get rid of
HOST_WIDE_INT and HOST_WIDEST_INT then that's plenty of progress on
its own.

Thanks,
Richard


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