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] |
On 10/02/2014 02:00 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ah, good point. In which case I don't see what this code is trying to accomplish relative to falling through to the "prefer the unsigned one" code below. Shall we just remove it?I don't know for sure. There was __int128 code there, I replaced it with the "same" code, so as to avoid any functional differences on mainstream targets. I imagine the code is there for when __int128 is the same size as some other types besides long long.
But if __int128 happened to be the same size as long the code was wrong. Well, I suppose it could be there to prefer __int128 to intTI_type_node. I guess let's move the intN handling below the code for (u)long and add support for unsigned extended integers like there is for both long and long long.
Jason
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |