On 11/24/2013 05:47 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of
having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of this
in the common code, especially in the
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of
> having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of
> this in the common code, especially in the code that was just not correct for
> ty
We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of
having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of this
in the common code, especially in the code that was just not correct for types
beyond 64 bits.
Our motivation was that this is already a hu
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port
> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through
> the entire patch.This patch covers the i386 port.
Should this patch also address c
