RE: [ping][patch] Fixed-point patch 2/10

["Fu, Chao-Ying" <fu@mips.com>]

> 
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > 
> > Nigel Stephens wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > >> Fu, Chao-Ying wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  
> > >>> Ex 2: (A and B are negative. )
> > >>> A.high = 0xffffffffffffffff and A.low = 0x8000000000000000
> > >>> B.high = 0xffffffffffffffff and B.low = 0x0000000000000001
> > >>> => A > B, because A.high == B.high and
> > >>> (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) a.low > (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) b.low
> > >>>     
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I see; two's complement is set up so that after 
> > masking the sign
> > >> bit, you can do an unsigned compare.  Thank you for explaining.
> > >>   
> > > 
> > > Since double_int is already declared with low unsigned, like this:
> > > 
> > >    typedef struct
> > >    {
> > >      unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT low;
> > >      HOST_WIDE_INT high;
> > >    } double_int;
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Would it be more obvious to simply remove the casts 
> altogether, e.g.
> > 
> > There's a comment in double-int.h that suggests that the 
> signedness of
> > low/high is historical and subject to change.  So, I think 
> > the casts are
> > OK -- but I think omitting them is also OK.  Chao-Ying, you 
> may decide
> > that as you please.
> > 
>  
>   Ok. I will omit them.  Thanks!
> 

  This patch (2/10) is applied.  Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Chao-ying