Re: [wide-int] Undo some differences with trunk

2013-11-21 Thread Richard Sandiford
Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net writes: On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:58 AM, Richard Sandiford rsand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: I've committed a patch upstream to convert TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi if there is an obvious tree_fits_[su]hwi_p guard. So, in general, I like putting them on

[wide-int] Undo some differences with trunk

2013-11-20 Thread Richard Sandiford
I've committed a patch upstream to convert TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi if there is an obvious tree_fits_[su]hwi_p guard. There were some other changes from TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi that weren't as obvious and I think we should deal with them separately. As before, these

Re: [wide-int] Undo some differences with trunk

2013-11-20 Thread Kenneth Zadeck
I would leave out the last frag of tree.c. It actually gets rid of what i consider, a latent bug. it does not show up with the current implementation of wide-int, but if that implementation changed, it would. The problem is that you really should not expect that you can set the min or max

Re: [wide-int] Undo some differences with trunk

2013-11-20 Thread Richard Sandiford
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes: I would leave out the last frag of tree.c. It actually gets rid of what i consider, a latent bug. it does not show up with the current implementation of wide-int, but if that implementation changed, it would. The problem is that you really

Re: [wide-int] Undo some differences with trunk

2013-11-20 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:58 AM, Richard Sandiford rsand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: I've committed a patch upstream to convert TREE_INT_CST_LOW to tree_to_[su]hwi if there is an obvious tree_fits_[su]hwi_p guard. So, in general, I like putting them on trunk, and then merging them into the