Hi, On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > > Hmm. And maintaining a cache is faster than > > passing/returning/manipulating two registers? > > For the most part, we merely mirror existing code, check out > lookup_const_double and immed_double_const. No, I won't without patches on this list. You keep repeating bragging about wide_int during the last two weeks, without offering anything concrete about it whatsoever. You'll understand that I (or anybody else) can't usefully discuss with you any merits or demerits of the implementation you chose. (can I btw. complain about the retainment of underscores? If it's a base data type, then why not wideint? Make that a testament for the "quality" of feedback you'll get with the information given) I mean, preparing the audience for an upcoming _suggested_ change in data structure of course is fine. But argueing as if the change happenend already, and what's more concerning, as if the change was even already suggested and agreed upon even though that's not the case, is just bad style. I would suggest to stay conservative about whatever you have (except if it's momentarily materializing), and _especially don't argue against or for or not against or for whatever improvement is suggested on the grounds that you have a better, as of yet secret but surely taking-over-the-world very-soon-now implementation of datastructure X_. Nobody has seen it yet, so you can't expect to get any feedback on it. Certainly that's the thing you need to get it into the code base. > If the existing code is wrong, love to have someone fix it. :-) Also, > bear in mind, on a port with with OImode math for example, on a 32-bit > host, it would be 8 registers... Nice try. But what problem do _you_ want to solve? For instance why should a port with OImode for example be interesting to the FSF? I hope you recognize this as half-rhethorical question, but still, how exactly will wide_int help for the goal (which remains to be shown as useful), how is it implemented?, why isn't it worse than crap on sensible (i.e. 64bit) hosts, and why should everybody not interested in such target pay the price, or why isn't there a price to pay for non-OI-targets? I'm actually more intersted in comments to the first part, but still, comments on OI appreciated. Ciao, Michael.
