expand_expr sign extension problem.

[Michael Meissner]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:03:47PM +0100, grahams wrote:
> I can think of one good reason why not to define INT_ONLY_FIELDS when
> compiling using GCC during bootstrap stages 2 and 3 one loses the
> nice ability to see the enum values for code, mode, etc. in GDB.

For me, this is a major feature (ie, using an enumeration).  Also for those of
us using GCC as the stage1 compiler, not the bootstrap process.

> I think using autoconf would be overkill unless there is already a
> autoconf test available. 
> 
> Wouldn't it just be simpler just to include something like perhaps
> in system.h
> 
> 	#ifndef __GNUC__
> 	#define INT_ONLY_FIELDS
> 	#endif
> 
> By do it this way we can eliminate the need for port to be
> concerned with this nuisance.

But then you loose the ability for a port to say its non-GCC compiler does
support enum bitfields.  I'll defer that though to those that use such a
compiler.

> I've just thought of a good reason why stages 2 & 3 might 
> need to be built with INT_ONLY_FIELDS defined. What if the
> host debugger can't handle enumerated bit fields!

Or you use gdb as the host debugger, and don't use COFF debug format.

-- 
Michael Meissner, Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company.
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482