RFA: hook doc patch (94/112): TARGET_MIN_DIVISIONS_FOR_RECIP_MUL

[Joern Rennecke]

Quoting Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>:

> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>>> * tm.texi (TARGET_MIN_DIVISIONS_FOR_RECIP_MUL): Fix return type.
>>> Why do we have "unsigned int" here and not just unsigned?  That is,
>>> the patch improves correctness, but I am wondering whether the code
>>> just shouldn't say unsigned?
>> If we can get approval for the code change from an appropriate
>> reviewer, that's fine with me too.
>
> I think you can make that change under the obvious rule.

Do we have any coding standard or similar that says that
"unsigned" is preferable to "unsigned int"?
FWIW I can't find anything on that topic in the GNU coding standard.

Looking at existing usage in target.h, there are two lines with
a plain "unsigned", but eight with "unsigned int".