Mike Stump writes:
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:58 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> I've committed a patch upstream to convert TREE_INT_CST_LOW to
>> tree_to_[su]hwi
>> if there is an obvious tree_fits_[su]hwi_p guard.
>
> So, in general, I like putting them on trunk, and then merging them into
> th
On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:58 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> I've committed a patch upstream to convert TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi
> if there is an obvious tree_fits_[su]hwi_p guard.
So, in general, I like putting them on trunk, and then merging them into the
branch. When that is done, the
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> I would leave out the last frag of tree.c. It actually gets rid of what
> i consider, a latent bug. it does not show up with the current
> implementation of wide-int, but if that implementation changed, it
> would. The problem is that you really should not expect tha
I would leave out the last frag of tree.c. It actually gets rid of what
i consider, a latent bug. it does not show up with the current
implementation of wide-int, but if that implementation changed, it
would. The problem is that you really should not expect that you can
set the min or max va
I've committed a patch upstream to convert TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi
if there is an obvious tree_fits_[su]hwi_p guard. There were some other
changes from TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi that weren't as obvious
and I think we should deal with them separately. As before, these changes
