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.
Jakub
