On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:24 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> hmm, yes. Again practically for most targets size_t will be >> following its SIZE_TYPE advice, but surely not for all. OTOH while >> the above clearly doesn't look "accidential", it certainly looks >> wrong. If not for sizetype then at least for size_type_node. The >> comment hints that the patch at most will no longer "get better >> code", but if Pmode gets better code when used for sizetype(!) then >> we should do so unconditionally and could get rid of the size_t >> reverse-engineering in initialize_sizetypes completely (m32c might >> disagree here). > > On m32c, Pmode is a 24-bit type, and the chip just doesn't have enough > math opcodes to to 24-bit pointer math with any degree of efficiency. > So, you either do 32-bit math (performance is horrible, since it's all > emulated) or 16-bit math on just the offset (sizeof size_t < Pmode).
Which means that Ada must be seriously broken on m32c (well, I guess nobody tried it there ;)). Richard.
