On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:05 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 07/13/2018 03:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:12 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > So besides the general discussion about references/pointers for out > > parameters > > let's stay consistet within related APIs. This means wide_int_binop should > > have a > > > > wide_int > > wide_int_binop (enum tree_code, const wide_int &, const wide_int &, > > signop, wi::overflow_type *) > > > > signature. Notice how I elided the out wide_int parameter to be the > > return value which means > > the function isn't supposed to fail which means gcc_unreachable () for > > "unhandled" tree codes. > > wide_int_binop was returning failure for: > > > case CEIL_DIV_EXPR: > > if (arg2 == 0) > > return false; > > res = wi::div_ceil (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow); > > break; > > > > case ROUND_DIV_EXPR: > > if (arg2 == 0) > > return false; > > res = wi::div_round (arg1, arg2, sign, &overflow); > > break; > etc > > How do you suggest we indicate success/failure to the caller?
Oh, ok. Exceptions? (eh...) Well, so I guess you can leave the signature as-is apart from turing the overflow result into a pointer. OK with that change. Richard. > Aldy > > > It's more like an exceptional state anyway. > > > > The same goes for the poly_int_binop signature. > > > > The already existing wi::accumulate_overflow should probably be re-done as > > > > wi::overflow_type wi::accumulate_overflow (wi::overflow_type, > > wi::overflow_type); > > > > Richard. > > > >> Thanks for the review! > >> Aldy
