From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15479 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2013 09:34:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 14845 invoked by uid 48); 28 Feb 2013 09:33:52 -0000 From: "amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/54640] arm_adjust_block_mem: signed/unsigned comparison Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:34:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Last reconfirmed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg02659.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54640 Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed|2013-02-25 00:00:00 |2013-02-27 0:00 --- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke 2013-02-28 09:33:49 UTC --- I have reverted my patch because of an objection by Richard Earnshaw on the gcc-patches mailing list: >> - HOST_WIDE_INT hi_val = (i >> 32) & 0xFFFFFFFF; >> + HOST_WIDE_INT hi_val = (i >> 16 >> 16) & 0xFFFFFFFF; I'm not convinced this is obvious. It's certainly ugly. > I think the correct thing to do is to force all ARM targets to use a 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT.