https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> r9-3927 changed the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT which is always at least
> 64bit ...
>
> I also wonder if we could use wi::widest_int here.
That's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
r9-3927 changed the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT which is always at least
64bit ...
I also wonder if we could use wi::widest_int here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I commented in the dup:
This code hasn't been fixed to avoid overflows and generally expects to operate
with infinite precision integers ... (you know, 32/64bits will be enough -
really!).
Fixing requires
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 85158 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|