On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yeah. Kenny was adamant that for wide-int we should have an UNSIGNED/SIGNED > > Yeah, you can blame me. I think (, UNSIGNED) conveys more than (,true) or > (,false). The sad part is, this has always been true. > >> enum rather than a boolean flag. And I think that does make things clearer. >> I always have to remind myself whether "true" means "unsigned" or "signed", >> especially for RTL functions. > > Certainly any api that uses boolean for signed/unsigned, can be switched to > signop (aka SIGNED, UNSIGNED). It was put in as a general feature > disconnected from wide-int for a reason. :-) > > Here we shall salute the last of the hold outs: > > base_type_for_mode (machine_mode mode, bool unsignedp) > convert_extracted_bit_field (rtx x, machine_mode mode, machine_mode tmode, > bool unsignedp) > gimple_signed_or_unsigned_type (bool unsignedp, tree type) > avoid_expensive_constant (machine_mode mode, optab binoptab, > int opn, rtx x, bool unsignedp) > get_rtx_code (enum tree_code tcode, bool unsignedp) > vector_compare_rtx (enum tree_code tcode, tree t_op0, tree t_op1, > bool unsignedp, enum insn_code icode) > create_expand_operand (struct expand_operand *op, > enum expand_operand_type type, > rtx value, machine_mode mode, > bool unsigned_p) > create_convert_operand_to (struct expand_operand *op, rtx value, > machine_mode mode, bool unsigned_p) > create_convert_operand_from (struct expand_operand *op, rtx value, > machine_mode mode, bool unsigned_p)
Err, you miss a few '[un]signed unsigned[_]p' cases ;) > but, it was designed with uses like: > > bool unsigned_p = false; > > in mind as well. I will note: > > bool signed_p; > > and: > > shorten_into_mode (struct rtx_iv *iv, machine_mode mode, > enum rtx_code cond, bool signed_p, struct niter_desc *desc) > > are the odd man out. Their value is inverted from the value signop uses. > >> I certainly prefer the enum to separate functions though. They can get >> messy if a new call site is added that needs a variable parameter. > > To me it’s a numbers game. When there are 200 simple calls and 5 complex > ones, I prefer 200 simple calls without the extra parameters, and 5 with the > horror that is the argument list.
