> I actually think tree_fits is better, int_fits* looks too ambiguous to me,
> what kind of integer (tree, int, HWI, ...) you actually mean.
Seconded, all the more so that int_fits_type_p requires an INTEGER_CST as
argument, unlike tree_fits_[su]hwi_p which accept any tree as argument.
--
Eric
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:50:45AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> > Add tree_fits_shwi_p and tree_fits_uhwi_p. The implementations are taken
> > directly from host_integerp.
>
> tree_ is a bit generic - you only ever return true for I
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Add tree_fits_shwi_p and tree_fits_uhwi_p. The implementations are taken
> directly from host_integerp.
tree_ is a bit generic - you only ever return true for INTEGER_CSTs,
so please use int_fits_[su]hwi_p please (mimicing int_fits_type
Add tree_fits_shwi_p and tree_fits_uhwi_p. The implementations are taken
directly from host_integerp.
Thanks,
Richard
gcc/
* tree.h (tree_fits_shwi_p, tree_fits_uhwi_p): Declare.
* tree.c (tree_fits_shwi_p, tree_fits_uhwi_p): Define.
Index: gcc/tree.h
==
