On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> > On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> >>> On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the
> curren
On 10/30/2013 02:34 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bit
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>> On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bitsizetype is TImode on x86_6
On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bitsizetype is TImode on x86_64 and others, so I don't think it's
necessar
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
>> implementation.
>>
>> - bitsizetype is TImode on x86_64 and others, so I don't think it's
>>necessarily true that all offset_ints are sign
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bitsizetype is TImode on x86_64 and others, so I don't think it's
necessarily true that all offset_ints are signed. (widest_int are
though.)
i am