On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 07/01/11 22:04, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> I should add: make the type, the new mode, the testcases etc. entirely
>> target-specific; target-independent GCC should not need to know or care
>> about the specifics of this type. It's bad enough target-independent GCC
>> knowing about HImode, SImode, DImode and TImode outside default target
>> hook implementations for targets that use those modes.
>
> The idea here is that there is more than one target that supports 40 bit
> operations, so why shouldn't we have support for it in
> target-independent code and libgcc? It differs from QI/HI/SImode etc. in
> that the precision is known and not target-specific.
>
>> And is there anything wrong with the existing PDImode name?
>
> PDImode is so far always defined as MODE_PARTIAL_INT which is handled
> quite differently (i.e. by not handling it very much at all). IMO it
> would be a bad idea to overload the name.
Would it make sense to fix the "not much at all" problem?
paul
