On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:48:29PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> > + TI_POINTER_SIZED_TYPE, >> >> I'd rather see TI_UINTPTR_TYPE and TI_INTPTR_TYPE (note they might >> not be exactly of POINTER_SIZE but larger). > > We already have [u]intptr_type_node -- but only in c-family/, thus > ubsan.c/asan.c cannot use those nodes. I can create both > TI_SIGNED_POINTER_SIZED_TYPE and TI_UNSIGNED_POINTER_SIZED_TYPE, > but we currently need only the latter...
So simply move them to the middle-end. The set of C language types that define the target ABI should be constructed and maintained by the middle-end (you need it for various builtins anyway) Richard. >> TI_POINTER_SIZED_TYPE is ambiguous, too - what's its signedness? > > Unsigned. But yeah, one can't tell by just looking at the name. > >> All around the compiler we use sizetype and ssizetype to munge pointers >> (well, not strictly correct as targets may define sizetype to be >> larger/smaller >> than actual pointers). > > I see. > > Marek
