On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 03:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>
>>> This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
>>> behave differently. However, I want to know if differently m
On 11/05/2012 03:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
"incorrectly" or "I have fixed problems that we have just decided
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
> behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
> "incorrectly" or "I have fixed problems that we have just decided to live
> with".
As far as I know, the TREE
On 11/05/2012 01:08 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess th
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>
> The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
> legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess the first question is fairly
obvious so you are
i have been trying to change the representation of INT_CSTs so that they
do not carry around the limitation that they can only represent numbers
as large as 2 host_wide_ints (HWI). I have chosen a variable length
implementation that uses an array of HWIs that is just large enough to
hold the s
