From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28809 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2011 17:00:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 28793 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2011 17:00:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f49.google.com) (209.85.210.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:00:10 +0000 Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so3089862pzk.36 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:00:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.24.8 with SMTP id q8mr45322pbf.313.1311786009456; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.34.2 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:00:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: PATCH: Require and use int64 for x86 options From: Uros Bizjak To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , "Joseph S. Myers" , Igor Zamyatin , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00484.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, H.J. Lu 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=3Dyes 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. =A0This patch uses > int64 on both ix86_isa_flags and PTA. =A0I added a new option to opt: > > ; Maximum number of mask bits in a variable. > MaxMaskBits > ix86_isa_flags =3D 64 > > It mark ix86_isa_flags as 64bit. =A0Any comments? We should just introduce ix86_isa_flags2. We shouldn't stop at 128 flags. = ;) Uros.