From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29033 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2009 15:56:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 29017 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2009 15:56:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:55:59 +0000 Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id nAAFtuAj030840 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:55:56 -0800 Received: from fxm22 (fxm22.prod.google.com [10.184.13.22]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id nAAFsXYA009863 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:55:53 -0800 Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so163091fxm.2 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.153.27 with SMTP id i27mr231737bkw.155.1257868553142; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from coign.google.com ([67.218.106.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm262301bwz.7.2009.11.10.07.55.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:55:52 -0800 (PST) To: "Paul Edwards" Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" , Subject: Re: i370 port References: <200911041646.nA4Gkx1m032222@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <49D99EB7E50944F4A09820F1016ACA77@Paullaptop> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Paul Edwards's message of "Wed\, 11 Nov 2009 02\:50\:30 +1100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 "Paul Edwards" writes: > and c-parse.c: That file no longer exists so I don't know how to interpret this. >> I think I would stop right there. Why can't the i370 port support >> 64-bit integers? Plenty of 32-bit hosts support them. > > It got an internal error. I don't have the skills to get that to work, > but I do have the skills to bypass it one way or another (and I > demonstrated what I am doing now, but I know that that > intrusive code will break everything else, so want to back it out, > without losing the functionality that I want). A failure in your target is not a reason to change target-independent code. > So would defining a new option be a reasonable solution for any > target that wants to limit code generation for whatever reason? No. Ian