patch to fix constant math - first small patch - patch ping for the next stage 1
Thu Mar 28 15:06:00 GMT 2013
adding the gcc_checking_assert is going to require that i include
system.h in hwint.h which seems to cause a loop. while in principle, i
agree with the assert, this is going to be a mess.
On 03/27/2013 10:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Here is the first of my wide int patches with joseph's comments and the
>> patch rot removed.
>> I would like to get these pre approved for the next stage 1.
> + int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - (prec &
> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1));
> I think this should gcc_checking_assert that prec is not out of range
> (any reason why prec is signed int and not unsigned int?) rather than
> ignore bits in prec.
> +static inline HOST_WIDE_INT
> +zext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, int prec)
> + if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
> + return src;
> + else
> + return src & (((HOST_WIDE_INT)1
> + << (prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1))) - 1);
> likewise. Also I'm not sure I agree about the signedness of the result / src.
> zext_hwi (-1, HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) < 0 is true which is odd.
> The patch misses context of uses, so I'm not sure what the above functions
> are intended to do.
>> On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>>> +# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
>>> This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and there's
>>> no real need for using "h" here given the promotion of short to int; you
>>> can just use "" (rather than e.g. needing special handling in xm-mingw32.h
>>> like is done for HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT).
More information about the Gcc-patches