On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:59:06PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So perhaps something like this? Don't know how much more inefficient it is
> > compared to what it used to do before.
>
> Yes, that looks good.
>
> > Or just keep the existing code and just remove the assert and instead return
> > NULL whenever outer_submode is wider than MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT? At
> > least during propagation that will make zero change.
> > Though, in that case I have still doubts about the current code handling
> > right
> > modes wider than HOST_BITS_PER_DOUBLE_INT but smaller than
> > MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT (none on i?86/x86_64). If TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT
> > == 0, we still silently throw away the upper bits, don't we?
>
> Well - not with your added check, no?
For TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT == 0 should be hopefully ok. Not sure
about TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT != 0, can it express any generic_wide_int, or
is it still bound to wide_int (i.e. MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT rounded up)
precision? Mike?
Jakub
