Re: [Patch] Cleanup widest_int_mode_for_size

2014-10-31 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > Hi, > > The comment on widest_int_mode_for_size claims that it returns the > widest integer mode no wider than size. The implementation looks more > like it finds the widest integer mode smaller than size. Everywhere it > is used, the m

Re: [Patch] Cleanup widest_int_mode_for_size

2014-10-27 Thread James Greenhalgh
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:37:12AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > *ping* *pingx2* Cheers, James > > Thanks, > James > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:17:21AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The comment on widest_int_mode_for_size claims that it returns the > > widest integer

Re: [Patch] Cleanup widest_int_mode_for_size

2014-09-30 Thread James Greenhalgh
*ping* Thanks, James On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:17:21AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > Hi, > > The comment on widest_int_mode_for_size claims that it returns the > widest integer mode no wider than size. The implementation looks more > like it finds the widest integer mode smaller than size

[Patch] Cleanup widest_int_mode_for_size

2014-09-23 Thread James Greenhalgh
Hi, The comment on widest_int_mode_for_size claims that it returns the widest integer mode no wider than size. The implementation looks more like it finds the widest integer mode smaller than size. Everywhere it is used, the mode it is looking for is ultimately checked against an expected alignme