[PATCH] c++ify sreal

[Richard Biener]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 08:51:41AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>>>>> do $subject, and cleanup for always 64 bit hwi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bootstrapped + regtested x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, ok?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok.  Can you please replace remaining HOST_WIDE_INT
>>>>>> vestiges in there with [u]int64_t please?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch breaks the build on debian 6.0:
>>>>>
>>>>> ../../gcc/sreal.c: In member function āint64_t sreal::to_int() constā:
>>>>> ../../gcc/sreal.c:159: error: āINT64_MAXā was not declared in this scope
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Index: system.h
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- system.h    (revision 217338)
>>>> +++ system.h    (working copy)
>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>>>     event inttypes.h gets pulled in by another header it is already
>>>>     defined.  */
>>>>  #define __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS
>>>> +#define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS
>>>>
>>>>  /* We must include stdarg.h before stdio.h.  */
>>>>  #include <stdarg.h>
>>>
>>>
>>> Still, I don't believe it will be portable everywhere.
>>> Can't you use
>>> INTTYPE_MAXIMUM (int64_t) instead of INT64_MAX?  We already use that
>>> in GCC...
>>
>>
>> We could also start using the standard C++ mechanism (numeric_limits).
>
> Except int64_t does not have to be defined for a C++ implementation.

Also not through stdint.h / cstdint?  Note that we should only care
for what happens in practice here.  I hope that at least for more recent
standards than C++04 (which is what we require IIRC) they are on
parity with C99.

Richard.

> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>>
>> (nothing wrong with INTTYPE_MAXIMUM, just an alternative)
>>
>> --
>> Marc Glisse