On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 22, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> writes: >>> Ping. >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00769.html >>> Any ideas? I recall chatter on IRC that we want to merge wide-int into trunk >>> soon. Bootstrap failure on arm would prevent that... >> >> Sorry for the late reply. I hadn't forgotten, but I wanted to wait >> until I had chance to look into the ICE before replying, which I haven't >> had chance to do yet. > > They are separable issues, so, I checked in the change. > >> It's a shame we can't use C++ style casts, >> but I suppose that's the price to pay for being able to write >> "unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT”. > > unsigned_HOST_WIDE_INT isn’t horrible, but, yeah, my fingers were expecting a > typedef or better. I slightly prefer the int (1) style, but I think we > should go the direction of the patch.
Well, on my list of things to try for 4.10 is to kill off HOST_WIDE_* and require a 64bit integer type on the host and force all targets to use a 64bit 'hwi'. Thus, s/HOST_WIDE_INT/int64_t/ (and the appropriate related changes). Richard.