> 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)
Does 3) really buy us something? That would make backports painful I think. -- Eric Botcazou
