On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The main thing keeping zero-precision wide-
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
The main thing keeping zero-precision wide-ints alive was void_zero_node,
a tree used in the C and C++ fro
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> The main thing keeping zero-precision wide-ints alive was void_zero_node,
>>> a tree used in the C and C++ frontends that has type VOID_TYPE bu
Richard Biener writes:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> The main thing keeping zero-precision wide-ints alive was void_zero_node,
>> a tree used in the C and C++ frontends that has type VOID_TYPE but code
>> INTEGER_CST.
>>
>> Richard B. asked me to replace the IN
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The main thing keeping zero-precision wide-ints alive was void_zero_node,
> a tree used in the C and C++ frontends that has type VOID_TYPE but code
> INTEGER_CST.
>
> Richard B. asked me to replace the INTEGER_CST with a new constant typ
Richard Sandiford writes:
> The main thing keeping zero-precision wide-ints alive was void_zero_node,
> a tree used in the C and C++ frontends that has type VOID_TYPE but code
> INTEGER_CST.
>
> Richard B. asked me to replace the INTEGER_CST with a new constant type,
> here called VOID_CST. Most
