On Aug 12, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> + Second, the GCC conding conventions prefer explicit conversion,
Spelling... coding
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:28:58PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> the function names make no sense - they should be talking about
> >> host-wide-ints, because that is what they are about
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:28:58PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> the function names make no sense - they should be talking about
>> host-wide-ints, because that is what they are about. Thus,
>>
>> /* Conversion functions. */
>>
>>
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:28:58PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> the function names make no sense - they should be talking about
> host-wide-ints, because that is what they are about. Thus,
>
> /* Conversion functions. */
>
> HOST_WIDE_INT to_signed_hwi () const;
> unsigned HOST_WIDE_I
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > Increment/decrement operations did not exist, please do not add
>> > them at this point.
>>
>> Note that I have also added +=, -= and *= operations.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 8/13/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Increment/decrement operations did not exist, please do not add
> > them at this point.
>
> Note that I have also added +=, -= and *= operations. Having them
> has three advantages. First, it matches expectati
On 8/13/12, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 01:22 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> > yes, it is just as confusing and a bug as
>>> >
>>> > 2.3 + 1;
>>> >
>>> > is in plain C.
>> Yes, it is a bug. It's a bit disturbing that it wasn't caught
>> in bootstrap.
>
> You'll recall that I pointed i
On 08/13/2012 01:22 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > yes, it is just as confusing and a bug as
>> >
>> > 2.3 + 1;
>> >
>> > is in plain C.
> Yes, it is a bug. It's a bit disturbing that it wasn't caught
> in bootstrap.
>
You'll recall that I pointed it out last time around as well.
r~
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> *this += double_int_one;
>> would be less confusing.
>
> Increment/decrement operations did not exist, please do not add them
> at this point.
But they are going to be used when the call-sites are converted.
There is no point in leaving
On 8/13/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Increment/decrement operations did not exist, please do not add
> them at this point.
Note that I have also added +=, -= and *= operations. Having them
has three advantages. First, it matches expectations on what
numeric types allow. Second, it results in
On 8/12/12, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > This implements the double_int rewrite.
> >
> > See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00711.html for
> > details.
>
> I am taking it as a chance to ask a couple questions about the coding
> conventions.
>
> >
On 8/13/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2012 Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > > > > +inline double_int &
> > > > > +double_int::operator ++ ()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + *this + double_i
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
+inline double_int &
+double_int::operator ++ ()
+{
+ *this + double_int_one;
>>>
>>>
>>> *this += double_int_
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
+inline double_int &
+double_int::operator ++ ()
+{
+ *this + double_int_one;
*this += double_int_one;
would be less confusing.
Do you mean that *this + double_int_one; alone also works,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >+inline double_int &
> >+double_int::operator ++ ()
> >+{
> >+ *this + double_int_one;
>
> *this += double_int_one;
> would be less confusing.
Do you mean that *this + double_int_one; alone also works, just is
confusing? That would
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> This implements the double_int rewrite.
>>
>> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00711.html for
>> details.
>>
>> Diego.
>
>
> I am taking it as a chance to ask a couple questions ab
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
This implements the double_int rewrite.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00711.html for
details.
Diego.
I am taking it as a chance to ask a couple questions about the coding
conventions.
2012-08-12 Lawrence Crowl
* hash
17 matches
Mail list logo
