Hi,
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 05:00:41PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > No to what? To the fact that HOST_WIDEST_INT is host-dependent
> > > and thus should not be used to drive code generation? Or no to the
> > > fact that we can (and do) use int64_t as host integer type?
> >
> > No to the fact
> > No to what? To the fact that HOST_WIDEST_INT is host-dependent
> > and thus should not be used to drive code generation? Or no to the
> > fact that we can (and do) use int64_t as host integer type?
>
> No to the fact that int64_t should be used (and the occurrences in the LTO
> code
> are
> No to what? To the fact that HOST_WIDEST_INT is host-dependent
> and thus should not be used to drive code generation? Or no to the
> fact that we can (and do) use int64_t as host integer type?
No to the fact that int64_t should be used (and the occurrences in the LTO code
are OK). hwint.h i
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> This introduces host-dependent code generation differences, right?
>>> You can simply use int64_t for code that is run on the host only.
>>
>> Well, no, there is an entire file dedic
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> This introduces host-dependent code generation differences, right?
>> You can simply use int64_t for code that is run on the host only.
>
> Well, no, there is an entire file dedicated to this business (hwint.h).
No to what? To the fact that
> I don't think that is related to C++ switch, because C++03 doesn't have
> long long, only C++11 and C99 has it. We apparently are using int64_t or
> uint64_t in a couple of places already though:
IMHO they should be audited and fixed if need be.
> ada/tb-gcc.c: uwx_get_reg ((struct uwx_env *)
> This introduces host-dependent code generation differences, right?
> You can simply use int64_t for code that is run on the host only.
Well, no, there is an entire file dedicated to this business (hwint.h).
--
Eric Botcazou
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 05:16:21PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > This introduces host-dependent code generation differences, right?
> > > You can simply use int64_t for code that is run on the host only.
> >
> > Well, if we rely on int64_t being around now (that is probably the case with
> > C
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 05:16:21PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > This introduces host-dependent code generation differences, right?
> > You can simply use int64_t for code that is run on the host only.
>
> Well, if we rely on int64_t being around now (that is probably the case with
> C++ switch),
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > PR 50744 is an issue with an integer overflow when we propagate the
> > estimated size and time effects from callees to callers. Because such
> > paths in the parameter value graph can be arbitrarily long, we simply
> > need
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PR 50744 is an issue with an integer overflow when we propagate the
> estimated size and time effects from callees to callers. Because such
> paths in the parameter value graph can be arbitrarily long, we simply
> need to introduce a
11 matches
Mail list logo
