On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Tristan Gingold <ging...@adacore.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Tristan Gingold <ging...@adacore.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> currently sizetype precision (cf store-layout.c:initialize_sizetypes) is 
>>> the same as size_t.
>>> This is an issue on VMS, where size_t is 'unsigned int', but we'd like to 
>>> have a 64 bit sizetype
>>> for Ada.  My understanding is that ISO-C doesn't require size_t precision 
>>> to match the one of
>>> void *.
>>> We can't really lie about size_t because it is exposed in API (such as 
>>> writev).
>>> I don't see any reason (other than historic one) to have an exact match 
>>> between sizetype and size_t.
>>> So this patch adds an hook to allow targets to define sizetype.
>> Well, there is at least "common sense" that couples size_t and sizetype.
>> As you can at most allocate size_t memory via malloc (due to its size_t
>> use for the size) sizes larger than what fits into size_t do not make much
>> sense.  Thus, a sizetype larger than size_t does not make much sense.
> Agreed, but malloc() is not the only way to get memory.  At least on VMS, 
> there are
> some syscalls to allocate memory with a 64 bit length argument.
>> The middle-end of course would not care much what you use for sizetype.
>> But be warned - if the mode for sizetype is different of ptr_mode things
>> are going to be interesting for you (yes, ptr_mode, not Pmode).
> That's the issue.  POINTER_SIZE is 64 bits (when -mpointer-size=64) but 
> size_t should always be 32 bit.


>>> I initially thought about using Pmode precision for sizetype precision, but 
>>> there are a few machines
>>> (m32c, sh, h8300) where the precisions aren't the same.  I don't know 
>>> wether this is on purpose or
>>> unintentional.
>> At least for m32c it is IIRC because 24bit computations are soo expensive
>> on that target, so HImode is chosen for sizetype.
> That's a good reason!
>> So - why do you need a 64bit sizetype again? ;)
>> Can it be that you don't really need 64bit sizes but you hit issues with
>> sizetype != ptr_mode size?
> I don't have an urgent need for 64bit sizes (although would be nice to have 
> them).
> I remember that the first build with sizetype=32 but ptr_mode =DImode was a 
> failure.
> Maybe I should first investigate this path, as m32c could use "unsigned int" 
> (16 bits)
> for size_type alongside 32 for POINTER_SIZE ?

Well, this setup is not well supported by the middle-end (and indeed m32c
has existing issues with that).  So in your case decoupling sizetype from
size_t sounds like the more appropriate solution.

>> Btw, while we are transitioning to target hooks in this case I'd prefer
>> a target macro alongside the existing SIZE_TYPE, etc. ones.
> Ok.

I'd choose SIZETYPE (for confusion, heh), defaulting to SIZE_TYPE.


> Tristan.

Reply via email to