Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2013 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > Richard Sandiford writes:
>> > >if (small_prec)
>> > > ;
>> > >else if (precision == xprecision)
>> > > while (len >= 0 && val[len - 1]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Richard Sandiford writes:
> > >if (small_prec)
> > > ;
> > >else if (precision == xprecision)
> > > while (len >= 0 && val[len - 1] == -1)
> > >len--;
>
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 10/15/2013 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford writes:
>>>if (small_prec)
>>> ;
>>>else if (precision == xprecision)
>>> while (len >= 0 && val[len - 1] == -1)
>>>len--;
>> Err, len > 0 obviously.
> you
On 10/15/2013 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Sandiford writes:
if (small_prec)
;
else if (precision == xprecision)
while (len >= 0 && val[len - 1] == -1)
len--;
Err, len > 0 obviously.
you were only close.patch tested on ppc and commit
Richard Sandiford writes:
> if (small_prec)
> ;
> else if (precision == xprecision)
> while (len >= 0 && val[len - 1] == -1)
> len--;
Err, len > 0 obviously.
Thanks for doing this.
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> @@ -1204,11 +1204,11 @@ wide_int_to_tree (tree type, const wide_
> }
>
>wide_int cst = wide_int::from (pcst, prec, sgn);
> - int len = int (cst.get_len ());
> - int small_prec = prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1);
> + unsigned int len
i added the assertion that richard requested and tested this on x86-64.
committed as revision 203602.
On 10/06/2013 05:13 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
On 10/04/2013 01:00 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I was hoping Richard would weigh in here. In case not...
Kenneth Z
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> On 10/04/2013 01:00 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I was hoping Richard would weigh in here. In case not...
>>
>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>> I was thinking that we should always be able to use the constant as-is
>> for max_wide_int-based and addr_wide_int-based o
On 10/04/2013 01:00 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I was hoping Richard would weigh in here. In case not...
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
I was thinking that we should always be able to use the constant as-is
for max_wide_int-based and addr_wide_int-based operations. The small_prec
again, you can ge
I was hoping Richard would weigh in here. In case not...
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
I was thinking that we should always be able to use the constant as-is
for max_wide_int-based and addr_wide_int-based operations. The small_prec
>>> again, you can get edge cased to death here.i think
I was thinking that we should always be able to use the constant as-is
for max_wide_int-based and addr_wide_int-based operations. The small_prec
again, you can get edge cased to death here.i think it would work
for max because that really is bigger than anything else, but it is
possible (t
11 matches
Mail list logo