On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>>> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the >>>> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i >>>> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int is 32. >>>> I could be wrong about this but if i am correct, what do you want me to do? >>> >>> While you're right that most mainstream architectures now require a 64-bit >>> HWI, not all of them do according to config.gcc, so I don't think that this >>> path is entirely dead yet. I'll carry out the testing once we agree on the >>> final change. >> >> I'm hoping, once this patch series is in that we might be able to >> migrate the ARM port back to supporting a 32-bit HWI. The driving >> factor behind the original switch was supporting 128-bit constants for >> Neon and these patches should resolve that. > > i?86 would be another candidate (if you don't build a compiler with -m64 > support).
Not true for x86 since we have Variable HOST_WIDE_INT ix86_isa_flags = TARGET_64BIT_DEFAULT | TARGET_SUBTARGET_ISA_DEFAULT in i386.opt. We need more than 32 bits for ix86_isa_flags. -- H.J.