On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Omar Torres wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675 >> >> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it? > > Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also incorrect, as > far as I can see: LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is never less than 64 bits, > so this test always returns true. There's a discussion in Section > 6.2.5. of the rationale in C99 that explains why long long is defined > to be this way. > > Andrew. >
LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is in fact defined as 32-bit in the port I am working. I inherited this GCC port, so I do not now whether or not this is fully compliant with C99 standard. I believe the reason is to reduce code size (this is an 8-bit word target, 64-bit operations are very expensive). The core is aimed, at low-power embedded applications without an OS (an event-driven scheduler is used instead). A very old GCC port has been sucessfuly used for years, all I am trying to do is to bring that old port to a more current version of GCC. Tahnks, -Omar
