On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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. >> > > Hi, > > We are also running out of bits in ix86_isa_flags. This patch uses > int64 on both ix86_isa_flags and PTA. I added a new option to opt: > > ; Maximum number of mask bits in a variable. > MaxMaskBits > ix86_isa_flags = 64 > > It mark ix86_isa_flags as 64bit. Any comments? We should just introduce ix86_isa_flags2. We shouldn't stop at 128 flags. ;) Uros.
