"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > Make the code base easier to understand for newcomers. It's also a
>> > documentation improvement (you see what a HOST_WIDE_INT really is),
>> > alongside with [u]int64_t being less to type ...
>>
>> I personally find the
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Make the code base easier to understand for newcomers. It's also a
> > documentation improvement (you see what a HOST_WIDE_INT really is),
> > alongside with [u]int64_t being less to type ...
>
> I personally find the abstraction and the separation w
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Same as for going C++.
>
> Not to the same extent, this will be worse because done en masse throughout
> the code instead of gradually.
Like the gimple -> gimple * change pending or the various
gimple -> gswitch,glabel,etc. stuff? It's on a similar
> Same as for going C++.
Not to the same extent, this will be worse because done en masse throughout
the code instead of gradually.
> Make the code base easier to understand for newcomers. It's also a
> documentation improvement (you see what a HOST_WIDE_INT really is),
> alongside with [u]int6
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > 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)
> 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)
Richard Biener writes:
>
> The following is my current idea on progressing on the HOST_WIDE_INT
> removal
...
> 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_wides
Richard Biener 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 uns
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
