On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: > On 04/23/2014 05:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 22, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Richard Sandiford >>> <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> Ping. >>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00769.html >>>>> Any ideas? I recall chatter on IRC that we want to merge wide-int into >>>>> trunk >>>>> soon. Bootstrap failure on arm would prevent that... >>>> >>>> Sorry for the late reply. I hadn't forgotten, but I wanted to wait >>>> until I had chance to look into the ICE before replying, which I haven't >>>> had chance to do yet. >>> >>> They are separable issues, so, I checked in the change. >>> >>>> It's a shame we can't use C++ style casts, >>>> but I suppose that's the price to pay for being able to write >>>> "unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT”. >>> >>> unsigned_HOST_WIDE_INT isn’t horrible, but, yeah, my fingers were >>> expecting a typedef or better. I slightly prefer the int (1) style, but I >>> think we should go the direction of the patch. >> >> Well, on my list of things to try for 4.10 is to kill off HOST_WIDE_* and >> require a 64bit integer type on the host and force all targets to use >> a 64bit 'hwi'. Thus, s/HOST_WIDE_INT/int64_t/ (and the appropriate >> related changes). >> >> Richard. > > I should point out that there is a community that wants to go in the > opposite direction here. They are the people with real 32 bit hosts who > want to go back to a world where they are allowed to make hwi a 32 bit > value. They have been waiting wide-int to be committed because they see > this as a way to get back to world where most of the math is done natively. > > I am not part of this community but they feel that if the math that has the > potential to be big to be is done in wide-ints, then they can go back to > using a 32 bit hwi for everything else. For them, a wide-int built on 32 > hwi's would be a win.
That wide-int builds on HWI is an implementation detail. It can easily be changed to build on int32_t. Btw, what important target still supports a 32bit HWI? None for what I know. Look at config.gcc and what does _not_ set need_64bit_hwint. Even plain arm needs it. Richard. > kenny
