From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4103 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2003 00:00:45 -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 4096 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2003 00:00:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monkey.daikokuya.co.uk) (213.152.55.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2003 00:00:44 -0000 Received: from neil by monkey.daikokuya.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18w9uc-0004ye-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:57:30 +0000 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:25:00 -0000 From: Neil Booth To: Richard Henderson , Ulrich Weigand , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: RFA: Ada variable-sized objects, bit_size_type == TImode, and divti3 Message-ID: <20030320235730.GC17290@daikokuya.co.uk> References: <200303202211.XAA14586@faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20030320223021.GJ2006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030320223021.GJ2006@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01322.txt.bz2 Richard Henderson wrote:- > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:11:50PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Well, I guess I can find out why divti3 doesn't get built. However, > > the IMO really interesting question is why TImode division should be > > needed -- calling __divti3 just to make sure that a variable is 8-byte > > aligned on the stack strikes me as seriously suboptimal ... > > Huh? We've computed its size, in bits. We need 67-bit > arithmetic for this, technically. Not that I actually > believe that someone is going to create a 2EB dynamically > sized object... I dunno, give GCC another 5 years... Neil.