From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23256 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2014 22:25:00 -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 23245 invoked by uid 89); 21 Aug 2014 22:25:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:24:59 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XKamt-0003TX-52 from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:24:55 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:24:54 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:24:53 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XKamp-0007Ks-1d; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:24:51 +0000 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:25:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: DJ Delorie CC: Subject: Re: __intN patch 3/5: main __int128 -> __intN conversion. In-Reply-To: <201408212216.s7LMGAbC020403@greed.delorie.com> Message-ID: References: <201408132211.s7DMBGBu016387@greed.delorie.com> <201408212123.s7LLNPIQ018746@greed.delorie.com> <201408212216.s7LMGAbC020403@greed.delorie.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg02156.txt.bz2 On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Maybe you need to refactor __glibcxx_digits so there is a version > > taking the bitsize as an argument rather than using sizeof(T) * > > __CHAR_BIT__, but that should be the only change needed to handle > > such types with the existing macros. > > Since the other macros use this macro, we'd need a complete second set > of macros just for the __intN types anyway, each of which takes a Well, the existing macros would be defined in terms of the new ones. > bitsize and passes it down. Since gcc already knows all the right > answers for the __intN types and needs to emit other macros for them > anyway, where's the benefit? The more predefined macros there are, the more impact on startup time (though I don't have any specific figures). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com