From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122150 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2015 19:00:01 -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 122137 invoked by uid 89); 13 Aug 2015 19:00:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net Received: from resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net (HELO resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net) (96.114.154.162) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:59:59 +0000 Received: from resomta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.234]) by resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 4Jz01r00H53iAfU01Jzxpo; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:59:57 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d] ([IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d]) by resomta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 4Jzv1r00S2ztT3H01Jzw51; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:59:57 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] rs6000: Use rldiwi in constant construction From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <20150813024346.GB19357@gate.crashing.org> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:00 -0000 Cc: Richard Henderson , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1439341904-9345-1-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> <1439341904-9345-7-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> <20150812140251.GH4711@gate.crashing.org> <55CB6C87.2000802@redhat.com> <20150813024346.GB19357@gate.crashing.org> To: Segher Boessenkool X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00731.txt.bz2 On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Yes. And there are much worse problems, like many things not working > right if your HOST_WIDE_INT would happen to be more than 64 bits; we > cannot really shake those out because there is no actual system to > test that on -- but it also doesn't actually matter, because there is > no system to run it on :-) Lots of systems support 128 bit types just fine, and one could use TImode f= or HOST_WIDE_INT, if one really, really wanted to. x86_64 I think is one o= f those systems.