On 04/19/2016 04:21 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 13:19:22 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
We are inconsistent with the type of tb->flags: usage varies loosely
between int and uint64_t. Settle to uint32_t everywhere, which is
superior to both: at least one target (aarch64) uses
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 13:19:22 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> We are inconsistent with the type of tb->flags: usage varies loosely
> between int and uint64_t. Settle to uint32_t everywhere, which is
> superior to both: at least one target (aarch64) uses the most significant
> bit in the u32, and
On 04/07/2016 10:19 AM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
We are inconsistent with the type of tb->flags: usage varies loosely
between int and uint64_t. Settle to uint32_t everywhere, which is
superior to both: at least one target (aarch64) uses the most significant
bit in the u32, and uint64_t is wasteful.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> We are inconsistent with the type of tb->flags: usage varies loosely
> between int and uint64_t. Settle to uint32_t everywhere, which is
> superior to both: at least one target (aarch64) uses the most significant
> bit in the u32, an
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 13:19:22 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> We are inconsistent with the type of tb->flags: usage varies loosely
> between int and uint64_t. Settle to uint32_t everywhere, which is
> superior to both: at least one target (aarch64) uses the most significant
> bit in the u32, and
We are inconsistent with the type of tb->flags: usage varies loosely
between int and uint64_t. Settle to uint32_t everywhere, which is
superior to both: at least one target (aarch64) uses the most significant
bit in the u32, and uint64_t is wasteful.
Compile-tested for all targets.
Suggested-by:
