Igor Zamyatin <izamya...@gmail.com> writes:

> As you may see pta_flags enum in i386.c is almost full. So there is a
> risk of overflow in quite near future. Comment in source code advises
> "widen struct pta flags" which is now defined as unsigned. But it
> looks not optimal.
>
> What will be the most proper solution for this problem?

Why is widening pta_flags "not optimal?"

It's hard for me to believe that we still care about bootstrapping a
i386-*-* compiler with a compiler which doesn't support any 64-bit type.
So I don't see any problem with setting need_64bit_hwint=yes in
config.gcc for i386-*-*, changing pta_flags to be unsigned
HOST_WIDE_INT, and letting pta_flags go up to (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 1
<< 63.

If anybody doesn't like that idea, we can simply add a flags2 field and
a pta_flags2 enum with PTA2_xxx constants.

Ian

Reply via email to