On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: > On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the >>> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i >>> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int is 32. >>> I could be wrong about this but if i am correct, what do you want me to do? >> >> While you're right that most mainstream architectures now require a 64-bit >> HWI, not all of them do according to config.gcc, so I don't think that this >> path is entirely dead yet. I'll carry out the testing once we agree on the >> final change. > > I'm hoping, once this patch series is in that we might be able to > migrate the ARM port back to supporting a 32-bit HWI. The driving > factor behind the original switch was supporting 128-bit constants for > Neon and these patches should resolve that.
i?86 would be another candidate (if you don't build a compiler with -m64 support). Richard. > R. > >
