On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2012-06-16 04:19, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> @@ -179,7 +179,11 @@ extern const unsigned char >>> mode_class[NUM_MACHINE_MODES]; >>> >>> extern CONST_MODE_SIZE unsigned char mode_size[NUM_MACHINE_MODES]; >>> #define GET_MODE_SIZE(MODE) ((unsigned short) mode_size[MODE]) >>> -#define GET_MODE_BITSIZE(MODE) ((unsigned short) (GET_MODE_SIZE (MODE) * >>> BITS_PER_UNIT)) + >>> +#define GET_MODE_BITSIZE(MODE) \ >>> + ((unsigned short) (GET_MODE_SIZE (MODE) * BITS_PER_UNIT)) >>> +#define GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE(MODE) \ >>> + ((unsigned short) (GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (MODE) * BITS_PER_UNIT)) >>> >>> /* Get the number of value bits of an object of mode MODE. */ >>> extern const unsigned short mode_precision[NUM_MACHINE_MODES]; >> >> Can you move GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE to after GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE, changing >> "size >> in bytes" to "size in bytes and bits" in the comment just above? Because the >> overloading of UNIT in the macro makes the whole thing slightly confusing. >> :-) >> > > Done in the committed patch. >
This caused: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53749 -- H.J.
