On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
> I don't have time to re-implement __int128 support in the compiler for
> you.
>
> So, are there any other specific actionable things I can do for you to
> make the patch acceptable?
No. The right way to make __int256 support - the feature, not the pres
On 14/07/12 04:21, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:36:35AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
I just checked all in tree gcc targets, and none claim OImode support.
>>>
>>> ./
On Jul 13, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
>> I understand the beauty of putting in the const wide int stuff first...
>> I don't think it matters much to me... but I might ask why? I think we
>> have added support for all in-tree gcc ports for
On Jul 13, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:36:35AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> I just checked all in tree gcc targets, and none claim OImode support.
>>
>> ./s390/s390-modes.def:23:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
>
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
> I understand the beauty of putting in the const wide int stuff first...
> I don't think it matters much to me... but I might ask why? I think we
> have added support for all in-tree gcc ports for all possible testcases.
> Do you know of a single test
On Jul 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:36:35AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> I just checked all in tree gcc targets, and none claim OImode support.
>
> ./s390/s390-modes.def:23:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
> ./spu/spu-modes.def:29:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
> ./ia64/ia64-modes.
On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> We have another patch underway to do N-bit constant ints, where N is defined
>> by the port. This patch is in the process of being reviewed now, and Kenny
>> should be able to submit it shortly.
>
> The avr port defines __int24 and __uint24.
On Jul 13, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> As I said, in Kenny's next patch, we add support for all constants of
>> any size the port needs. I don't know if you've ever tried to use the
>> compiler with OImode, but, what I can say is the bu
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> The avr port defines __int24 and __uint24.
> Is that compatible with a generic __int24?
In my view, given suitable generic support ports like that should move to
__intN keywords (usable with "unsigned", so "unsigned __intN" would be the
unsigned ve
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:36:35AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> I just checked all in tree gcc targets, and none claim OImode support.
>
> ./s390/s390-modes.def:23:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
> ./spu/spu-modes.def:29:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
> ./ia64/ia64-mod
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:36:35AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> I just checked all in tree gcc targets, and none claim OImode support.
./s390/s390-modes.def:23:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
./spu/spu-modes.def:29:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
./ia64/ia64-modes.def:68:INT_MODE (OI, 32);
./i386/i386-modes.def:88:INT_MODE (
On Jul 13, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> I have put the patch through the C test suite, and it doesn't show any
>> failures.
>>
>> Do you have any examples of bugs that are _introduced_ by my patch? I'd be
>> happy to fix any that arise.
>
> No. Just you expose the users to tho
Mike Stump wrote:
> This patch adds __int256 to the front-ends. We follow the __int128 code
> fairly closely...
>
> So, an outstanding question would be, how do I get the mangle codes
> allocated for the type? I just choose two unused codes, for now. All in
> all, the patch was pretty straight
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
> As I said, in Kenny's next patch, we add support for all constants of
> any size the port needs. I don't know if you've ever tried to use the
> compiler with OImode, but, what I can say is the bugs are not terribly
> latent at times and they are not hid
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> This patch adds __int256 to the front-ends.
>
>>> We have another patch underway to do N-bit constant ints, where N is
>>> defined
On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> This patch adds __int256 to the front-ends.
>> We have another patch underway to do N-bit constant ints, where N is defined
>> by the port. This patch is in the process of being reviewe
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> This patch adds __int256 to the front-ends. We follow the __int128 code
> fairly closely...
>
> So, an outstanding question would be, how do I get the mangle codes allocated
> for the type? I just choose two unused codes, for now. All in al
17 matches
Mail list logo
