From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32646 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2003 21:32:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32615 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2003 21:32:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO toenail.toronto.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2003 21:32:29 -0000 Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h52LWSir013641; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:32:28 -0400 Received: (from fche@localhost) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h52LWRN3013639; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:32:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:32:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Doug Evans Cc: cgen-mail@the-meissners.org, cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Use of DI mode on 32-bit hosts Message-ID: <20030602213226.GB22856@redhat.com> References: <20030602173232.GA5871@tiktok.the-meissners.org> <16091.36137.249864.565465@casey.transmeta.com> <20030602192217.GA7082@tiktok.the-meissners.org> <16091.46855.343504.902253@casey.transmeta.com> <20030602204936.GA22856@redhat.com> <16091.49399.661309.108837@casey.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16091.49399.661309.108837@casey.transmeta.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 --7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 587 Hi - dje wrote: > > Can you explain what these types might be useful for, > > as distinct from the plain target types of SI/DI/etc.? >=20 > Abstraction and simplicity. For "normal" architectures they're not > distinct and map directly to SI/DI/etc. I guess I don't see the abstraction and simplicity this indirection is to provide. Do you have an example? > INT/UINT are treated separately. They're for host values > where one doesn't care about target sizes. In what circumstances do you consider it reasonable for cgen model files to deal with host data types/sizes? - FChE --7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+28JqVZbdDOm/ZT0RAni2AJ9wU4AHhiwmXK7x80o8kA6kz95DxgCfWO+x cEF/afmQIvdoYE6YKcWKgcQ= =6ukt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k--