This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] HOST_WIDE_INT transition steps
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:55:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] HOST_WIDE_INT transition steps
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1405191434420 dot 13304 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr>
Richard Biener <email@example.com> writes:
> The following is my current idea on progressing on the HOST_WIDE_INT
> 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.
> 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