Omar Torres wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Omar Torres wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, >>> Looks like Paul did submitted a patch here: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675 >>> >>> Can you or someone else take a look and comment on it? >> Oh my goodness, that is a huge patch. It's also incorrect, as >> far as I can see: LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is never less than 64 bits, >> so this test always returns true. There's a discussion in Section >> 6.2.5. of the rationale in C99 that explains why long long is defined >> to be this way.
> LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is in fact defined as 32-bit in the port I am > working. I inherited this GCC port, so I do not now whether or not > this is fully compliant with C99 standard. You do now. > I believe the reason is to reduce code size (this is an 8-bit word > target, 64-bit operations are very expensive). > The core is aimed, at low-power embedded applications without an OS > (an event-driven scheduler is used instead). A very old GCC port has > been sucessfuly used for years, all I am trying to do is to bring that > old port to a more current version of GCC. Sure, I understand that, and I also note one or two ports define LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE otherwise. Andrew.
