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
