Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 10 May 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> @@ -362,6 +362,9 @@ struct GTY((chain_next ("RTX_NEXT (&%h)"
>> /* The INSN_UID of an RTX_INSN-class code. */
>> int insn_uid;
>>
>> + /* The SYMBOL_REF_FLAGS of a SYMBOL_REF. */
>> + unsigned int symbol_ref_flags;
>> +
>
> In [3/7] you used
>
> + /* The ORIGINAL_REGNO of a REG. */
> + unsigned original_regno;
> +
>
> Should be consistent.
Oops, indeed. Will fix them all to use unsigned int if approved.
> Also I'm idly wondering if the explicit sizing of
> the fields via a bit-field as originally would be better here or just
> confusing. I guess unsigned and enums are 32bit for all hosts we care
> about, but if we ever have one where it's larger the rtx will suddenly
> contain another hole.
But that'll happen anyway, which is why I thought having bitfields
was confusing. Since this is a union, you'll always get the full
"unsigned int" regardless of the bitfield size; the bitfield can't
be packed with anything else.
Thanks,
Richard
