On Sun, 2014-07-13 at 16:42 -0700, Richard Smith wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, the attached patch ensures that __INTPTR_TYPE__ and __UINTPTR_TYPE__ are consistent as the existing logic would pick e.g. long and unsigned int on ARM. One issue I found during this is that the NVPTX backend is using unsigned types here, which doesn't make sense to me.
The change to SemaOverload.cpp looks unrelated? Other than that, this LGTM, although I'm a little concerned that it might be intptr_t we were getting wrong on some of those targets rather than uintptr_t. Have you checked that this gives the same results as GCC? There is no real reason we are using unsigned types for NVPTX, AFAIK. Feel free to change it for consistency if needed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
