> > No to what? To the fact that HOST_WIDEST_INT is host-dependent > > and thus should not be used to drive code generation? Or no to the > > fact that we can (and do) use int64_t as host integer type? > > No to the fact that int64_t should be used (and the occurrences in the LTO > code > are OK). hwint.h is precisely supposed to insulate the compiler from the > host > (of course we all know that this isn't 100% true) and HOST_WIDEST_INT is the > proper type to be used in this case, see existing examples.
Yep, most of the profiling code (where gcov_type is HOST_WIDEST_INT) is not safe when compiled on host with 32bit ints only. This was always considered acceptable given that bootstrapped compiler will have long long and stage1 compiler won't excercise the limits. This case seems same to me. So I would preffer the existing practice using HOST_WIDEST_INT. There is no need to have some code using int64_t and other HOST_WIDEST_INT for same reason. The actual patch is OK either with HOST_WIDEST_INT or in64_t based on where this discussion will lead. Honza > > -- > Eric Botcazou
