On 11/24/2013 05:47 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
We did not do this kind of transformation for any port beyond the minimum of
having the port use wide-int rather than double-int. we did do a lot of this
in the common code, especially in the code that was just not correct for types
beyond 64 bits.
Our motivation was that this is already a huge patch and going down that road
for some of the crusty old ports would have made the patch just bigger. so we
limited ourselves to the places in the common code that were obstructions to
port writers to make large types work.
I should point out that there are even a lot of places in the common code where
we left the old code alone as long as it was correct for larger types. For
testing purposes, we made no changes that were not bit for bit compatible for
code of 64 bits or shorter. There are some places where the right
transformation would yield better code, but we left those for later so we could
test this patch in a sane way.
I see. I was just wondering about those "obvious" places.
The patch is fairly mechanical (BTW: there are some unnecessary
whitespace changes that obscure real change), so it looks OK to me.
thanks.
Thanks,
Uros.
