> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:00 AM, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: >>> On 26/11/13 09:18, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>>>> you are correct - this was an incorrect change. I believe that the >>>>> patch below would be correct, but it is impossible to test it because (i >>>>> believe) that gcc no longer works if the host_bits_per_wide_int is 32. >>>>> I could be wrong about this but if i am correct, what do you want me to >>>>> do? >>>> >>>> While you're right that most mainstream architectures now require a 64-bit >>>> HWI, not all of them do according to config.gcc, so I don't think that this >>>> path is entirely dead yet. I'll carry out the testing once we agree on the >>>> final change. >>> >>> I'm hoping, once this patch series is in that we might be able to >>> migrate the ARM port back to supporting a 32-bit HWI. The driving >>> factor behind the original switch was supporting 128-bit constants for >>> Neon and these patches should resolve that. >> >> i?86 would be another candidate (if you don't build a compiler with -m64 >> support). > > Not true for x86 since we have > > Variable > HOST_WIDE_INT ix86_isa_flags = TARGET_64BIT_DEFAULT | > TARGET_SUBTARGET_ISA_DEFAULT > > in i386.opt. We need more than 32 bits for ix86_isa_flags.
Then that should be HOST_WIDEST_INT instead. Thanks, Andrew > > -- > H.J.
