On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 9/5/12, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> >> Modify gcc/*.[hc] double_int call sites to use the new interface.
> >> This change entailed adding a few new methods to double_int.
> >>
> >> Other changes will happen in separate patches. Once all uses of
> >> the old interface are gone, they will be removed.
> >>
> >> The change results in a 0.163% time improvement with a 70%
> >> confidence.
> >>
> >> Tested on x86_64.
> >> Index: gcc/ChangeLog
> >
> > - double_int_lshift
> > - (double_int_one,
> > - TREE_INT_CST_LOW (vr1.min),
> > - TYPE_PRECISION (expr_type),
> > - false));
> > + double_int_one
> > + .llshift (TREE_INT_CST_LOW
> > (vr1.min),
> > + TYPE_PRECISION
> > (expr_type)));
> >
> > Ick - is that what our coding-conventions say? I mean the
> > .llshift on the next line.
>
> Our conventions say nothing about that, but method calls seem
> somewhat analogoust to binary operators, and hence this formatting
> was probably the least objectional.
>
> > Otherwise ok.
>
> As in you want me to do something else?
No, just asking ;)
> > The tmin.cmp (tmax, uns) > 0 kind of things look odd - definitely
> > methods like tmin.gt (tmax, uns) would be nice to have. Or even
> > better, get rid of the 'uns' parameters and provide a
> >
> > struct double_int_with_signedness {
> > double_int val;
> > bool uns;
> > };
> >
> > struct double_uint : double_int_with_signedness {
> > double_uint (double_int);
> > };
> >
> > ...
> >
> > and comparison operators which take double_uint/sint.
>
> It would, I think, be better to have separate signed and unsigned
> types. That change was significantly structural, and I don't know
> where the wide_int work sits in relation to that choice.
double_int is supposed to be a twos-complement thing, ontop of it
we have functions that model signed/unsigned ints of a specific
precision.
> > You didn't remove any of the old interfaces, so I think we are
> > going to bitrot quickly again.
>
> I couldn't remove the old interface yet because I haven't updated
> all the code yet.
Ah, I see.
Richard.
