On Tue, 20 May 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > The following is my current idea on progressing on the HOST_WIDE_INT > > removal > > > > 1) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00381.html (ping) > > > > 2) make sure [u]int64_t is available and use that to define HOST_WIDE_INT > > > > 3) s/HOST_WIDE_INT/int64_t/ (same for unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) > > Does 3) really buy us something? That would make backports painful I think.
Same as for going C++. Make the code base easier to understand for newcomers. It's also a documentation improvement (you see what a HOST_WIDE_INT really is), alongside with [u]int64_t being less to type ... Btw, all of the current pending rewrite patches will make backports painful. Oh well. Richard.
