richard,
adding the gcc_checking_assert is going to require that i include
system.h in hwint.h which seems to cause a loop. while in principle, i
agree with the assert, this is going to be a mess.
kenny
On 03/27/2013 10:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
Here is the first of my wide int patches with joseph's comments and the
patch rot removed.
I would like to get these pre approved for the next stage 1.
+ int shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - (prec &
(HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1));
I think this should gcc_checking_assert that prec is not out of range
(any reason why prec is signed int and not unsigned int?) rather than
ignore bits in prec.
+static inline HOST_WIDE_INT
+zext_hwi (HOST_WIDE_INT src, int prec)
+{
+ if (prec == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)
+ return src;
+ else
+ return src & (((HOST_WIDE_INT)1
+ << (prec & (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1))) - 1);
+}
likewise. Also I'm not sure I agree about the signedness of the result / src.
zext_hwi (-1, HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) < 0 is true which is odd.
The patch misses context of uses, so I'm not sure what the above functions
are intended to do.
Richard.
On 10/05/2012 08:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
+# define HOST_HALF_WIDE_INT_PRINT "h"
This may cause problems on hosts not supporting %hd (MinGW?), and there's
no real need for using "h" here given the promotion of short to int; you
can just use "" (rather than e.g. needing special handling in xm-mingw32.h
like is done for HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT).
