long long availability in host compiler (Re: constant that doesn't fit in 32bits in alpha.c)

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> writes:

Tom> I don't understand what the code being external, or the review, has to
Tom> do with anything.  This code is compiled with the same host compiler as
Tom> everything else.

Eric> But, precisely, this line of reasoning is barely defensible in my
Eric> opinion.  If you really want to go that route, then let's stop
Eric> doing comprehensive reviews and stop requesting changes to
Eric> submitted patches in order to make them comply with the
Eric> agreed-upon practices, that would save time for everyone.

I never suggested anything like this.  I suppose you are arguing ad
absurdum here, but I don't think that this conclusion follows from the
antecedents.

I'm merely supporting Pedro's discovery that a rule, previously thought
to have been important, was found by accident not to matter.

Tom> HOST_WIDE_INT is also not very persuasive to me.  We did many things in
Tom> the past that became obsolete as compilers matured.

Eric> Why would HOST_WIDE_INT be obsolete?  That's a nice way to
Eric> abstract the host and reverting to hardcoded types like 'long
Eric> long' doesn't seem a progress to me.

Yes, ok.  I like typedefs too.  I misunderstood what you were saying
here.

Tom