From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>,
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin@gmail.com>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: RFC: PATCH: Require and use int64 for x86 options
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4YeHBy8G6zt=3JAnHDjbxM=PA-bJ55kPEwC=8krnYnY8Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOr7HqVqf+kBm4OJ-3JrFmc3uwCW71PH6nTcO2LhhHCWLw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As you may see pta_flags enum in i386.c is almost full. So there is a
>>> risk of overflow in quite near future. Comment in source code advises
>>> "widen struct pta flags" which is now defined as unsigned. But it
>>> looks not optimal.
>>>
>>> What will be the most proper solution for this problem?
>>
>> Why is widening pta_flags "not optimal?"
>>
>> It's hard for me to believe that we still care about bootstrapping a
>> i386-*-* compiler with a compiler which doesn't support any 64-bit type.
>> So I don't see any problem with setting need_64bit_hwint=yes in
>> config.gcc for i386-*-*, changing pta_flags to be unsigned
>> HOST_WIDE_INT, and letting pta_flags go up to (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 1
>> << 63.
>>
>> If anybody doesn't like that idea, we can simply add a flags2 field and
>> a pta_flags2 enum with PTA2_xxx constants.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> We are also running out of bits in ix86_isa_flags. This patch uses
> int64 on both ix86_isa_flags and PTA. I added a new option to opt:
>
> ; Maximum number of mask bits in a variable.
> MaxMaskBits
> ix86_isa_flags = 64
>
> It mark ix86_isa_flags as 64bit. Any comments?
We should just introduce ix86_isa_flags2. We shouldn't stop at 128 flags. ;)
Uros.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-27 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-27 17:00 H.J. Lu
2011-07-27 17:40 ` Uros Bizjak [this message]
2011-07-27 18:05 ` H.J. Lu
2011-07-27 21:37 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-07-27 22:00 ` H.J. Lu
2011-07-28 14:34 ` H.J. Lu
2011-08-04 18:08 ` H.J. Lu
2011-08-04 22:09 ` H.J. Lu
2011-08-04 22:46 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-08-04 23:44 ` H.J. Lu
2011-08-05 0:50 ` H.J. Lu
2011-07-29 9:53 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAFULd4YeHBy8G6zt=3JAnHDjbxM=PA-bJ55kPEwC=8krnYnY8Q@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=iant@google.com \
--cc=izamyatin@gmail.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).