On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 08:51:41AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>>>>> do $subject, and cleanup for always 64 bit hwi. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> bootstrapped + regtested x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, ok? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ok. Can you please replace remaining HOST_WIDE_INT >>>>> vestiges in there with [u]int64_t please? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This patch breaks the build on debian 6.0: >>>> >>>> ../../gcc/sreal.c: In member function āint64_t sreal::to_int() constā: >>>> ../../gcc/sreal.c:159: error: āINT64_MAXā was not declared in this scope >>> >>> >>> Index: system.h >>> =================================================================== >>> --- system.h (revision 217338) >>> +++ system.h (working copy) >>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ >>> event inttypes.h gets pulled in by another header it is already >>> defined. */ >>> #define __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS >>> +#define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS >>> >>> /* We must include stdarg.h before stdio.h. */ >>> #include <stdarg.h> >> >> >> Still, I don't believe it will be portable everywhere. >> Can't you use >> INTTYPE_MAXIMUM (int64_t) instead of INT64_MAX? We already use that >> in GCC... > > > We could also start using the standard C++ mechanism (numeric_limits).
Except int64_t does not have to be defined for a C++ implementation. Thanks, Andrew > > (nothing wrong with INTTYPE_MAXIMUM, just an alternative) > > -- > Marc Glisse
