> -----Original Message----- > From: avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org > [mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org] On > Behalf Of Georg-Johann Lay > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:23 AM > To: Joerg Wunsch > Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR Libc int32_t and uint32_t typedefs > areincorrect > > Joerg Wunsch schrieb: > > As Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > >>As fas as I know the only reason why avr-libc used mode attribute is to > >>factor out impact of -mint8, ... > > > > > > No, our previous definitions were -mint8 clean, AFAICT. It just > > looked more elegant to use GCC's mode attributes to ensure certain bit > > widths, so when someone was proposing that change, we accepted it. > > If avr-libc does not want to factor out -mint8 then it is even simplen: > just > > typedef signed long int32_t; > > There's absolutely no rationale for using mode attribute as sizeof(long) > is defined by the implementation and won't change at will.
Ok, so there are historical reasons why we (avr-libc maintainers) did it that way. Today, it may be different. Personally, I would like to see -mint8 go away. As we keep stating: it breaks the standard. That's a good enough reason for me. I'd rather not keep around non-standard stuff, which breaks avr-libc anyway. AIUI, though, there are people who want the best code density, which *may* require -mint8. But there aren't *that* many people who use the switch. I think that as soon as we have enough confidence in the code generation of the AVR backend, then we should seriously consider getting rid of it. I think it does make certain sense to change the typedefs of our stdint.h to make them straightforward C like Johann shows above. GCC modes are very much specific to GCC. Yes, the backend defines the sizes of those types, and the backend doesn't change on a whim. We don't have enough backend developers to be worried about "whimsy". ;-) Would someone be willing to work up a patch? Johann, you've been working on the GCC backend *a lot*. You probably have the best sense of where it stands. When do you think we can remove the -mint8 switch? Do you think that the backend codegen is good enough now to warrant this? _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
