From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29195 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2005 02:28:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29171 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2005 02:28:14 -0000 Received: from vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with SMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:28:14 +0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA10841; Mon, 27 Jun 05 22:30:12 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:28:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10506280230.AA10841@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: ja2morri@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: Q about Ada and value ranges in types Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01071.txt.bz2 RTH has been suggesting to use build_int_cst (etype, 0) instead. Indeed. I was trying to minimize the change, but such cleanups are always useful. This was also missing a protection on INTEGER_TYPE_P. I just got a good bootstrap of Ada on x86_64 with this and a patch from Diego to fix the other problem and also remove the kludge that's fixed by this.