Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > The following is my current idea on progressing on the HOST_WIDE_INT > removal > > 1) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00381.html (ping) > > 2) make sure [u]int64_t is available and use that to define HOST_WIDE_INT > > 3) s/HOST_WIDE_INT/int64_t/ (same for unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) > > Leaves us with HOST_WIDEST_INT (just use [u]int64_t, I don't think > we care for 128bit types).
All sounds good to me FWIW. There'll probably be plenty of references to "HWI", "hwint", etc. as well... > And HOST_WIDEST_FAST_INT for which > I don't have a very good suggestion other than either keeping > it, unconditionally using 'long' (thus simply remove > use_long_long_for_widest_fast_int and handling). The fast_[u]int64_t > types and friends don't seem to be very "useful". long isn't very good for ABIs like x86_64 x32 and MIPS n32, where the registers are wider than long. I don't see anything wrong with leaving it for now. If we get rid of HOST_WIDE_INT and HOST_WIDEST_INT then that's plenty of progress on its own. Thanks, Richard
