On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >> On 8/13/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Increment/decrement operations did not exist, please do not add >> > them at this point. >> >> Note that I have also added +=, -= and *= operations. Having them >> has three advantages. First, it matches expectations on what >> numeric types allow. Second, it results in more concise code. >> Third, it results in potentially faster code. I think we should >> be able to use those operators. >> >> When I run through changing call sites, I really want to change >> the sites to the final form, not do two passes. > > Ok.
Btw, I noticed we now have /* Conversion functions. */ HOST_WIDE_INT to_signed () const; unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT to_unsigned () const; /* Conversion query functions. */ bool fits_unsigned () const; bool fits_signed () const; bool fits (bool uns) const; the function names make no sense - they should be talking about host-wide-ints, because that is what they are about. Thus, /* Conversion functions. */ HOST_WIDE_INT to_signed_hwi () const; unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT to_unsigned_hwi () const; /* Conversion query functions. */ bool fits_unsigned_hwi () const; bool fits_signed_hwi () const; bool fits_hwi (bool uns) const; Likewise for static double_int from_unsigned (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cst); static double_int from_signed (HOST_WIDE_INT cst); I'm going to install a patch, after testing, that adjusts the names accordingly. Richard. > Thanks, > Richard.
