On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:04 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson
wrote:
>
> > From: Eric Botcazou
> > Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 22:03:04 +0200
>
> > > This issue exists, not just for targets that can have their
> > > MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE more-or-less easily tweaked higher, but also
> > > for the 'bit-container'
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:15 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson
wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:04:47 +0200
> > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
>
> > When bitsizetype objects end
> > up on the target, they use the actual Pmode and not the larger
> > precision mode.
>
> Oops, a half-way-done email slipped away,
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Axis-User: NO
> X-Axis-NonUser: YES
> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at bastet.se.axis.com
> X-Spam-Score: 1.102
> X-Spam-Level: *
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.102 required=5 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001,
> DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:04:47 +0200
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> When bitsizetype objects end
> up on the target, they use the actual Pmode and not the larger
> precision mode.
Oops, a half-way-done email slipped away, this part still needs
to be investigated.
I don't really know where the
> From: Eric Botcazou
> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 22:03:04 +0200
> > This issue exists, not just for targets that can have their
> > MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE more-or-less easily tweaked higher, but also
> > for the 'bit-container' targets where it *can't* be set higher.
> >
> > Let's please DTRT and
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:03 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > This issue exists, not just for targets that can have their
> > MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE more-or-less easily tweaked higher, but also
> > for the 'bit-container' targets where it *can't* be set higher.
> >
> > Let's please DTRT and correct the
> This issue exists, not just for targets that can have their
> MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE more-or-less easily tweaked higher, but also
> for the 'bit-container' targets where it *can't* be set higher.
>
> Let's please DTRT and correct the code here in the middle-end,
> so we don't ICE for those targets
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:04:42 +0200
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:43 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson
> wrote:
> >
> > TL;DR: instead of capping TYPE_PRECISION of bitsizetype at
> > MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE, search for the largest fitting size from
> > scalar_int_mode modes supported
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:43 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson
wrote:
>
> TL;DR: instead of capping TYPE_PRECISION of bitsizetype at
> MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE, search for the largest fitting size from
> scalar_int_mode modes supported by the target using
> targetm.scalar_mode_supported_p.
>
> -
> In
TL;DR: instead of capping TYPE_PRECISION of bitsizetype at
MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE, search for the largest fitting size from
scalar_int_mode modes supported by the target using
targetm.scalar_mode_supported_p.
-
In initialize_sizetypes, MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE is used as an upper
limit to the
10 matches
Mail list logo
