On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:32 PM Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 09:01 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:12 PM Xi Ruoyao
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 15:55 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > isn't it better to make targetm.const_anchor un
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 09:01 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:12 PM Xi Ruoyao
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 15:55 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > isn't it better to make targetm.const_anchor unsigned?
> > > The & and ~ are not subject to overflow rules.
> >
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:12 PM Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 15:55 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > isn't it better to make targetm.const_anchor unsigned?
> > The & and ~ are not subject to overflow rules.
>
> It's not enough: if n is the minimum value of HOST_WIDE_INT and
> const_a
On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 15:55 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> isn't it better to make targetm.const_anchor unsigned?
> The & and ~ are not subject to overflow rules.
It's not enough: if n is the minimum value of HOST_WIDE_INT and
const_anchor = 0x8000 (the value for MIPS), we'll have a signed 0x7fff
