From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10155 invoked by alias); 19 May 2014 18:55:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10142 invoked by uid 89); 19 May 2014 18:55:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f52.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f52.google.com) (74.125.82.52) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 19 May 2014 18:55:55 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l18so8183331wgh.23 for ; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:55:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.83.131 with SMTP id q3mr85498wiy.31.1400525751978; Mon, 19 May 2014 11:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2.26.169.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kr6sm15178235wjb.16.2014.05.19.11.55.51 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 May 2014 11:55:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Richard Biener Mail-Followup-To: Richard Biener ,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC] HOST_WIDE_INT transition steps References: Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 18:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Richard Biener's message of "Mon, 19 May 2014 14:43:45 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <87vbt1k37t.fsf@talisman.default> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01533.txt.bz2 Richard Biener writes: > The following is my current idea on progressing on the HOST_WIDE_INT > removal > > 1) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00381.html (ping) > > 2) make sure [u]int64_t is available and use that to define HOST_WIDE_INT > > 3) s/HOST_WIDE_INT/int64_t/ (same for unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) > > Leaves us with HOST_WIDEST_INT (just use [u]int64_t, I don't think > we care for 128bit types). All sounds good to me FWIW. There'll probably be plenty of references to "HWI", "hwint", etc. as well... > And HOST_WIDEST_FAST_INT for which > I don't have a very good suggestion other than either keeping > it, unconditionally using 'long' (thus simply remove > use_long_long_for_widest_fast_int and handling). The fast_[u]int64_t > types and friends don't seem to be very "useful". long isn't very good for ABIs like x86_64 x32 and MIPS n32, where the registers are wider than long. I don't see anything wrong with leaving it for now. If we get rid of HOST_WIDE_INT and HOST_WIDEST_INT then that's plenty of progress on its own. Thanks, Richard