https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > No, this would be definitely wrong. Agreed. > If the original code does not make you happy, do you think sth. along > > #define SZ (SZU64 * (sizeof (uint64_t) / sizeof (GFC_INTEGER_4))) > > would be better? I think it would. Using a more descriptive name than SZ would be even better. Perhaps SZ_IN_INT_4 ? And so the other definition of SZ for random_seed_i8 could be SZ_IN_INT_8. It might make the code slightly clearer and avoid having two different # defines for SZ.
