On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: > We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of > having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of > this in the common code, especially in the code that was just not correct for > types beyond 64 bits. > > Our motivation was that this is already a huge patch and going down that road > for some of the crusty old ports would have made the patch just bigger. so we > limited ourselves to the places in the common code that were obstructions to > port writers to make large types work. > > I should point out that there are even a lot of places in the common code > where we left the old code alone as long as it was correct for larger types. > For testing purposes, we made no changes that were not bit for bit > compatible for code of 64 bits or shorter. There are some places where the > right transformation would yield better code, but we left those for later so > we could test this patch in a sane way.
I see. I was just wondering about those "obvious" places. The patch is fairly mechanical (BTW: there are some unnecessary whitespace changes that obscure real change), so it looks OK to me. Thanks, Uros.
