From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B10AD3858C39 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:50:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B10AD3858C39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1681757406; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mgSiwGyoiWmujDQ4R/bBp8FckdarUBQ0O7qrkyXJ2bM=; b=SHpO0pxKMTJ6JgDl27XLZ4bcVbBXk7/iN6/FgKCRckXxsViO1dVJ7HPNX3mWE2vzMixq7P 68eFUEnv9XIcolDNSNQU+K3S5Lz0jIiKZyqdY+YNRy0b6NudR6KNlmrH5Eh13OtVZC38jX uX8EE4Ae6LrDtj62QaPTn/PPhbyw1/s= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-650-C3EGTnbsNpWpHvz1ynEZGA-1; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:50:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: C3EGTnbsNpWpHvz1ynEZGA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f0990ea3ecso9884615e9.2 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681757404; x=1684349404; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mgSiwGyoiWmujDQ4R/bBp8FckdarUBQ0O7qrkyXJ2bM=; b=f5/K7/W4hLbE0F5vJiCT2py/nQTw155YHOmd1rXkHjsDr1V+K/RXkPzR7+3moBlLn7 fhoRM/D/kOCAZoVrHyjUkGkCs3vr4mfL36/yWcYskkOi6ACmZiorywLniA2APgMR5q3a urv2Ja+iA7Es9hxtwL/0pHuEfWvmLkUKYz5ZVcteS1cI+Va+4ZaMaDxNmj5hjzXmwqBF /3jkhm68aazTAYJr0U1gF8K+8Dgxvf7EgtietOb1lKrjgyKnTUiyxiZ9I8Pt8sjY8V1Q a2aQX37BomkvX0Ykgo84mowUKUnROCVlpFhCWUjCj2N4BB6HcTuhtvoaRMgQIrHDRo9r J+PA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cHAJyd7YUidqyze4nSLLUzYiCNOf+7itRv5cTL2U2bZvfM8387 kMy2Dbv9ivrfr/6Dy3pm45ozPf5cvcYExq/8isQbeI0nBYJiSlL6GCVU8qqBGtGxKXxVWST9r6b nPwKhVVGXW5YAV1TMdA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4d04:0:b0:2ef:8c85:771b with SMTP id z4-20020a5d4d04000000b002ef8c85771bmr5663701wrt.51.1681757403795; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:50:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZVWye7cTM7NEQtqp55K2ef6a7J66qs1tMry87zQmos5D2QiTiezPvJ3PTaJwV1AZUjfHn9NQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4d04:0:b0:2ef:8c85:771b with SMTP id z4-20020a5d4d04000000b002ef8c85771bmr5663687wrt.51.1681757403438; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.201] ([139.47.42.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p5-20020a05600c358500b003f09fd301ddsm15564971wmq.1.2023.04.17.11.50.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46115e65-fa66-489b-9eec-254b0e5a2b4e@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:50:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Abstract out calculation of max HWIs per wide int. To: Andrew Pinski Cc: GCC patches , Andrew MacLeod References: <20230417183917.216257-1-aldyh@redhat.com> From: Aldy Hernandez In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 4/17/23 20:47, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches > wrote: >> >> I'm about to add one more use of the same snippet of code, for a total >> of 4 identical calculations in the code base. >> >> This seems safe enough even before the release, since this file hardly >> changes and I'm pretty much the only one who's touched it this year. >> >> OK for trunk? >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * wide-int.h (WIDE_INT_MAX_HWIS): New. >> (class fixed_wide_int_storage): Use it. >> (trailing_wide_ints ::set_precision): Use it. >> (trailing_wide_ints ::extra_size): Use it. >> --- >> gcc/wide-int.h | 12 +++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/wide-int.h b/gcc/wide-int.h >> index a450a744c9f..6be343c0eb5 100644 >> --- a/gcc/wide-int.h >> +++ b/gcc/wide-int.h >> @@ -264,6 +264,10 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> /* The number of HWIs needed to store an offset_int. */ >> #define OFFSET_INT_ELTS (ADDR_MAX_PRECISION / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) >> >> +/* The max number of HWIs needed to store a wide_int of PRECISION. */ >> +#define WIDE_INT_MAX_HWIS(PRECISION) \ >> + ((PRECISION + HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) > > Does it make sense to use an constexpr inline function instead of a > define here since GCC is written in C++11 after all? > That is: > constexpr inline unsigned WIDE_INT_MAX_HWIS(unsigned precision) > { > return ((precision + HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); > } I am following the current style in wide-int.h, both in naming as well as macros, but I have no strong opinions. I'm happy to do whatever y'all agree is best. Aldy