On Fri, 9 May 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 11:01:58AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, 9 May 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 09:34:14AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > Perhaps better CONST_SCALAR_INT_P instead of CONST_INT_P? > > > > > > > > Do we ever get a wide_int for Pmode/ptr_mode? But sure, I can > > > > > > Most likely not. Only if we start supporting > 64-bit pointers. > > > > Both variants passed bootstrap and regtest, which one should I push? > > I'd go with CONST_SCALAR_INT_P, in theory we need to handle that way all > scalar integers, so it feels more correct even when just CONST_INT_P is > needed now.
Pushed. Thanks, Richard.
