committed as revision 197456
kenny
On 04/03/2013 08:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
yes, i had caught that when i merged it in with the patches that used it, is
it ok aside from that?
Yes.
Thanks,
Richard.
kenny
On 04/03/2013 05:32 AM, R
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> yes, i had caught that when i merged it in with the patches that used it, is
> it ok aside from that?
Yes.
Thanks,
Richard.
> kenny
>
> On 04/03/2013 05:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>>
yes, i had caught that when i merged it in with the patches that used
it, is it ok aside from that?
kenny
On 04/03/2013 05:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
this time for sure.
Almost ...
diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c
index 330b42c..9
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> this time for sure.
Almost ...
diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c
index 330b42c..92d54a3 100644
--- a/gcc/hwint.c
+++ b/gcc/hwint.c
@@ -204,3 +204,35 @@ least_common_multiple (HOST_WIDE_INT a, HOST_WIDE_INT b)
{
return mul_hwi (abs_
this time for sure.
kenny
On 04/02/2013 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Richard,
did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on x86-64.
ok to commit?
diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c
index 330b42c..7e5b85c 100644
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> Richard,
>
> did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on x86-64.
> ok to commit?
diff --git a/gcc/hwint.c b/gcc/hwint.c
index 330b42c..7e5b85c 100644
--- a/gcc/hwint.c
+++ b/gcc/hwint.c
@@ -204,3 +204,33 @@ least_commo
Richard,
did everything that you asked here. bootstrapped and regtested on
x86-64. ok to commit?
kenny
On 04/02/2013 05:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
richard,
I was able to add everything except for the checking asserts.While I
t
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> richard,
>
> I was able to add everything except for the checking asserts.While I
> think that this is a reasonable idea, it is difficult to add that to a
> function that is defined in hwint.h because of circular includes. I could
> mo
richard,
I was able to add everything except for the checking asserts.While I
think that this is a reasonable idea, it is difficult to add that to a
function that is defined in hwint.h because of circular includes. I
could move this another file (though this appears to be the logical
co
richard,
adding the gcc_checking_assert is going to require that i include
system.h in hwint.h which seems to cause a loop. while in principle, i
agree with the assert, this is going to be a mess.
kenny
On 03/27/2013 10:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kenneth
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> Here is the first of my wide int patches with joseph's comments and the
> patch rot removed.
>
> I would like to get these pre approved for the next stage 1.
+ int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - (prec &
(HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1));
Here is the first of my wide int patches with joseph's comments and the
patch rot removed.
I would like to get these pre approved for the next stage 1.
On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
This may cau
Joseph,
Here is a revised patch with the change you asked for. There have been
no other comments. May I commit it?
Kenny
On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
This may cause problems on hosts not
is this ok to commit with this change?
kenny
On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and there's
no real need for using "h" here given the prom
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> +# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and there's
no real need for using "h" here given the promotion of short to int; you
can just use "" (rather than e.g. needing special handling in xm-
this patch adds two groups of things to hwint.h that are needed for
wide-int.[ch].
A new data type, the HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT (and all of it related
macros). This type is defined to be exactly 1/2 the width of a
HOST_WIDE_INT. This is used by the multiplication and division routines
in wide-i
16 matches
Mail list logo
