From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15873 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2011 22:39:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 15864 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Aug 2011 22:39:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:39:06 +0000 Received: (qmail 27002 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2011 22:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Aug 2011 22:39:05 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.74) (envelope-from ) id 1Qvd96-0000sf-87; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:39:04 +0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:06:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Gary Funck cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Add __builtin_complex to construct complex values (C1X CMPLX* macros) In-Reply-To: <20110822222607.GB20116@intrepid.com> Message-ID: References: <20110822222607.GB20116@intrepid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg01847.txt.bz2 On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Gary Funck wrote: > > On 08/19/11 15:55:12, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > Index: gcc/c-family/c-common.h > > =================================================================== > > --- gcc/c-family/c-common.h (revision 177894) > > +++ gcc/c-family/c-common.h (working copy) > > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ enum rid > > /* C extensions */ > > RID_ASM, RID_TYPEOF, RID_ALIGNOF, RID_ATTRIBUTE, RID_VA_ARG, > > RID_EXTENSION, RID_IMAGPART, RID_REALPART, RID_LABEL, RID_CHOOSE_EXPR, > > - RID_TYPES_COMPATIBLE_P, > > + RID_TYPES_COMPATIBLE_P, RID_BUILTIN_COMPLEX, > > RID_DFLOAT32, RID_DFLOAT64, RID_DFLOAT128, > > RID_FRACT, RID_ACCUM, > > Joseph, > > Does this comment also need to be adjusted? > > /* Reserved identifiers. This is the union of all the keywords for C, > C++, and Objective-C. All the type modifiers have to be in one > block at the beginning, because they are used as mask bits. There > are 28 type modifiers; if we add many more we will have to redesign > the mask mechanism. */ > > That is: 28 -> 29? This isn't a type modifier; neither is __builtin_types_compatible_p. It's not within the first 28. > BTW, unfortunately for GUPC, this will bump the number of bits > it uses to *32*. Thus, any subsequent addition of RID's will > cause GUPC to exceed the 32-bit barrier. > > Is it time to consider increasing the bit range of > this set of flag bits? I don't believe the comment is accurate; I'm not aware of any code for any C-family front end that uses these values as mask bits at all. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com