On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Tom Tromey wrote: > HOST_WIDE_INT is also not very persuasive to me. We did many things in
Although HOST_WIDE_INT is used for too many different things (see Diego's and my architectural goals documents for more discussion, specifically "HOST_WIDE_INT, HOST_WIDEST_INT and associated concepts" at the bottom of the conventions document), I don't think we should use "long long" directly in the compiler (except in limited places such as hwint.h selecting a type to use for some abstraction) simply because it's not the right abstraction for saying what the requirements are on the type being used. If the requirement is "at least 64 bits", int_fast64_t would be better, for example (gnulib can generate a stdint.h where the host doesn't have it). If it's "big enough for the target address space" then HOST_WIDE_INT is what we have at present. If it's "fast on the host, but size doesn't matter", then HOST_WIDEST_FAST_INT. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
