On 9/5/12, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> On 9/5/12, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >>> The tmin.cmp (tmax, uns) > 0 kind of things look odd - definitely >>> methods like tmin.gt (tmax, uns) would be nice to have. Or even >>> better, get rid of the 'uns' parameters and provide a >>> >>> struct double_int_with_signedness { >>> double_int val; >>> bool uns; >>> }; >>> >>> struct double_uint : double_int_with_signedness { >>> double_uint (double_int); >>> }; >>> >>> ... >>> >>> and comparison operators which take double_uint/sint. >> >> It would, I think, be better to have separate signed and unsigned >> types. That change was significantly structural, and I don't know >> where the wide_int work sits in relation to that choice. > > Note that in tree-vrp.c, if I remember correctly, I used both signed and > unsigned operations on the same object (emulating arbitrary precision is > a pain).
Presumably the wide_int work will address that issue. -- Lawrence Crowl