On 4/17/23 20:47, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:I'm about to add one more use of the same snippet of code, for a total of 4 identical calculations in the code base. This seems safe enough even before the release, since this file hardly changes and I'm pretty much the only one who's touched it this year. OK for trunk? gcc/ChangeLog: * wide-int.h (WIDE_INT_MAX_HWIS): New. (class fixed_wide_int_storage): Use it. (trailing_wide_ints <N>::set_precision): Use it. (trailing_wide_ints <N>::extra_size): Use it. --- gcc/wide-int.h | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/wide-int.h b/gcc/wide-int.h index a450a744c9f..6be343c0eb5 100644 --- a/gcc/wide-int.h +++ b/gcc/wide-int.h @@ -264,6 +264,10 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see /* The number of HWIs needed to store an offset_int. */ #define OFFSET_INT_ELTS (ADDR_MAX_PRECISION / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) +/* The max number of HWIs needed to store a wide_int of PRECISION. */ +#define WIDE_INT_MAX_HWIS(PRECISION) \ + ((PRECISION + HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT)Does it make sense to use an constexpr inline function instead of a define here since GCC is written in C++11 after all? That is: constexpr inline unsigned WIDE_INT_MAX_HWIS(unsigned precision) { return ((precision + HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1) / HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT); }
I am following the current style in wide-int.h, both in naming as well as macros, but I have no strong opinions.
I'm happy to do whatever y'all agree is best. Aldy
