[Bug bootstrap/20143] 4.0 bootstrap unreasonably requires 64-bit target type mode support.

["ericw at evcohs dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com  2005-02-24 14:04 -------
Subject: Re:  4.0 bootstrap unreasonably requires 64-bit
 target type mode support.

schlie at comcast dot net wrote:

>------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net  2005-02-24 02:49 -------
>Subject: Re:  4.0 bootstrap unreasonably requires
> 64-bit target type mode support.
>
>  
>
>>Please explain why you think it is a bug for the avr to support long long.
>>Your description sounds like an opinion.
>>
>>The pointer size on the AVR is currently 16 bits. This will change in the
>>near future to either 24 bits or 32 bits.
>>    
>>
>
>Simply because no data type size support should be required beyond that
>reasonably required by the source language itself.
>  
>
This is not an explanation; you are simply restating what you said earlier.

>Please note that enabling the compiler to build with limited but perfectly
>reasonable 32-bit maxim data types, does not prohibit the it's ability to
>support significantly larger data types if desired for whatever reason; so
>nor should the desire to restrict data type size support be inhibited.)
>  
>
If you experiment with the code, then you need to be prepared to 
unforseen limits.

>As an aside, please don't confuse support of > 64KB FLASH program memory on
>larger AVR's, with the architecture's inherent 16-bit data pointer / 64KB
>data address space, as the two are orthogonal.  Atmel has already clearly
>positioned ARM to pick up where the AVR architecture leaves off; so although
>we may likely see 256KB program + 8KB-32KB data memory versions forthcoming,
>that's likely about it; as avr's target market has no corresponding need of
>significantly more, not to mention it would bring the avr (an 8-bit machine)
>needlessly to it's knees attempting to shuffle extended pointers around,
>which wouldn't be too clever even if Atmel were to facilitate them; hence
>Atmel's, and others, positioning of ARM and similar 16/32 based embedded
>controllers. (Atmel understands what the avr is/isn't, to their credit.)
>
>  
>
And a GCC bug report is not the place to get into a philosophical 
argument concerning Atmel's marketing practices. Please choose a more 
appropriate place to expound upon things unrelated to a GCC bug.

You filed this "bug report" because you experimented and changed 
*working code* in CVS. The answer is "don't do that then". The change 
you made was not approved by either of the AVR maintainers and you ran 
into a limitation of the DWARF2 debugging format.

I don't see how this is valid bug. The bug is in *your* changes, not in 
the FSF tree. GCC Bugzilla is a place for bugs in working FSF releases 
or for future extensions that are currently be worked on. AFAIK, there 
are no current plans to change long long to 32 bits. Feel free to 
contact either of the AVR maintainers, Denis Chertykov or Marek 
Michalkiewicz about this. But as this stands, this not a bug.





-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20143