public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/102440] New: Uinteger Opt/Param but the underlying type is signed
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 03:11:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-102440-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102440

            Bug ID: 102440
           Summary: Uinteger Opt/Param but the underlying type is signed
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

The UInteger type in Opt/Param declaration can easily confuse people that the
variable for this option/parameter is unsigned.  But actually the internal
implementation uses signed for it, it requires users to add explicit type
conversion for some cases, otherwise the bootstrapping fails due to -Werror.
I guess the "UInteger" is mainly to restrict the value range of
option/parameter.  But I think we still can improve it? Like using one
anonymous union with uinteger and integer instead of a single integer, then
name the corresponding member as signedness?

File this as Segher's suggestion from patch reviewing.

             reply	other threads:[~2021-09-22  3:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-22  3:11 linkw at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-09-22  3:13 ` [Bug middle-end/102440] " linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-22  5:47 ` [Bug other/102440] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-23  6:23 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-27 13:29 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-25 15:00 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-25 20:53 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-25 21:14 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-26 15:17 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-26 16:45 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-102440-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).