On 7/4/25 1:18 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
This generally looks OK to me (including the tests).
+ HOST_WIDE_INT max = ((uint64_t)1 << bitsize) - 1;
Wouldn't a uint64_t type for max be clearer? I guess the worst that can
happen is compiling on a 32-bit host for a 64-bit target and get bitsize
== 32 here.
Do we even support this? If so it's surely not well tested :)
It's definitely not well tested, I just integrated a patch from Andrew
P. which fixed a problem in this space in the port. But I strongly
suspect more issues are lurking.
Note that HOST_WIDE_INT is a minimum of 64 bits these days, even if it
has to be implemented as a long long under the hood.
What you do want to watch out for is constants. HOST_WIDE_INT_C
HOST_WIDE_INT_UC can be used to generate constants that are safe in both
a 32 and 64 bit host world.
Jeff
