On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared the below basing on an hint provided by Joseph on the audit trail: > essentially, I'm replacing all (but two) uses of abs_hwi outside hwint.c by > absu_hwi, a variant which returns an unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT. All the > replacements make sense to me: either we are comparing two abs, or we are > passing the abs to a function actually expecting an unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT, or > we are comparing to another unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT, or we are just comparing > to a constant (I don't feel strongly in this case but seems safe to use > absu_hwi here too). I'm *not* replacing 2 occurrences in > gimple_expand_builtin_pow, because those are safe anyway in terms of range of > the argument (it's an HOST_WIDE_INT / 2 or 3) and the result is passed to a > function expecting a plain HOST_WIDE_INT (ie, gimple_expand_builtin_powi). > > I sanity checked the patch on x86_64-linux and OP reported that on AVR the > patch fixes the regression. > > Is it ok?
Ok. It looks like we might want to elimiate abs_hwi alltogether in favor of absu_hwi? Thanks, Richard.
