https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #116 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9693459e030977d6e906ea7eb587ed09ee4fddbd
commit r14-5054-g9693459e030977d6e906ea7eb587ed09ee4fddbd
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #115 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 56482
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56482=edit
modula2: proposed fix to fix largeconst.mod
Here is a patch set for the modula2 fe which re-implements the ZTYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #113 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb0119242317c2a6f3127b4acff6aadbfd1dfbc4
commit r14-4635-gcb0119242317c2a6f3127b4acff6aadbfd1dfbc4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #112 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d00385eaf72ccacff17935b0d214a26773e095f
commit r14-4592-g0d00385eaf72ccacff17935b0d214a26773e095f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #111 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:18c90eaa25363d34b5bef444fbbad04f5da2522d
commit r14-3774-g18c90eaa25363d34b5bef444fbbad04f5da2522d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #110 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52e270e847d240fb68a27c88ee60189515a6
commit r14-3759-g52e270e847d240fb68a27c88ee60189515a6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #109 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dce6f6a974d4ecce8491c989c35e23c59223f762
commit r14-3758-gdce6f6a974d4ecce8491c989c35e23c59223f762
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #107 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c62c82dc98dcb7420498b7114bf4cd2ec1a81405
commit r14-3756-gc62c82dc98dcb7420498b7114bf4cd2ec1a81405
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #104 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2f50aa2c578eb0572935e61818e1f2b18b53fd6
commit r14-3753-ga2f50aa2c578eb0572935e61818e1f2b18b53fd6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #105 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f76ae4369cb6f38e17510704e5b6e53847d2a648
commit r14-3754-gf76ae4369cb6f38e17510704e5b6e53847d2a648
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #106 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6e0ec5696ec5f52baed71fe23f978bcef80d458
commit r14-3755-gf6e0ec5696ec5f52baed71fe23f978bcef80d458
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #108 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ad9948b3e716885ce66bdf1c8e053880a843a2b
commit r14-3757-g3ad9948b3e716885ce66bdf1c8e053880a843a2b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #103 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:faff31701d50fab08d75fbb13affc82cff74a72c
commit r14-3752-gfaff31701d50fab08d75fbb13affc82cff74a72c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #101 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ce182e258d3ab11310442d5f4dd1d063018aca9
commit r14-3750-g2ce182e258d3ab11310442d5f4dd1d063018aca9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #102 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c984a1c3693df63520558631c827bb2c2d8b5bc
commit r14-3751-g8c984a1c3693df63520558631c827bb2c2d8b5bc
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #100 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a610d44d855424518ecb4429ea5226ed2c32543
commit r14-3749-g7a610d44d855424518ecb4429ea5226ed2c32543
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #99 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:95521e15b6ef00c192a1bbd7c13b5f35395c7c9e
commit r14-3748-g95521e15b6ef00c192a1bbd7c13b5f35395c7c9e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #98 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b38deff6127778fed453bb647e32738ba5c78e33
commit r14-3747-gb38deff6127778fed453bb647e32738ba5c78e33
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #96 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f4fa2501186e43d115238ae938b3df322c9e02a
commit r14-3745-g4f4fa2501186e43d115238ae938b3df322c9e02a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #97 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a9d6c7fbeb374365058ffe2b9815d2b4b7193d38
commit r14-3746-ga9d6c7fbeb374365058ffe2b9815d2b4b7193d38
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Trevor Gross changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmgross at umich dot edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #94 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8afe9d5d2fdd047cbd4e3531170af6b66d30e74a
commit r14-3128-g8afe9d5d2fdd047cbd4e3531170af6b66d30e74a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #93 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5ad55a83d504df582d1e6f1c168454a028c0437
commit r14-3120-gd5ad55a83d504df582d1e6f1c168454a028c0437
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #92 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b129d6b5f5f13995d57d677afcb3e94d0d9c327f
commit r14-3119-gb129d6b5f5f13995d57d677afcb3e94d0d9c327f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55642|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55637|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55628|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55596|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55592|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55572|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55567|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55562|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55561|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55545|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55542|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55538|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55530|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55522|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55500|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55499|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55482|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55435|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55427|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55416|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55392|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #70 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For right shifts, I wonder if we shouldn't emit inline (perhaps with exception
of -Os) something like:
__attribute__((noipa)) void
ashiftrt575 (unsigned long *p, unsigned long *q, int n)
{
int prec =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55386|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55376|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55364|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55329|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55327|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55240|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #63 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #62)
> What the patch including incremental one currently does is:
> 1) small _BitInt (on x86-64 N <= 64) - the BITINT_TYPEs are kept as is in
> the IL
>and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #62 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What the patch including incremental one currently does is:
1) small _BitInt (on x86-64 N <= 64) - the BITINT_TYPEs are kept as is in the
IL
and expanded, they always have non-BLKmode (QI/HI/SI/DI) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #61 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
>
> --- Comment #60 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #60 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #59)
> Oh, so BITINT_TYPE is INTEGRAL_TYPE_P but not INTEGER_TYPE (I think we
> don't have any BLKmode integer types?).
Yes. Some BITINT_TYPEs have BLKmode.
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #59 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #58)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #57)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #56)
> > > Created attachment 55244 [details]
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #58 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #57)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #56)
> > Created attachment 55244 [details]
> > gcc14-bitint-wip-inc.patch
> >
> > Incremental patch on top of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #57 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #56)
> Created attachment 55244 [details]
> gcc14-bitint-wip-inc.patch
>
> Incremental patch on top of the above patch.
>
> I've tried to make some progress and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #56 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 55244
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55244=edit
gcc14-bitint-wip-inc.patch
Incremental patch on top of the above patch.
I've tried to make some progress and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #55 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #54)
> At least for -Os we probably want to consider moving everything but
> small and maybe middle to out of line library functions?
Not sure about that, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #54 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55169|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #52 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #13)
> > https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/i386-ABI/-/issues/5 to request such an ABI
> > for 32-bit x86. I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, I've only tested it so far on
_BitInt(256) a = 0x1234ab461289cdab8d111007b461289cdab8d1wb;
_BitInt(256) b = 0x2385eabcd072311074bcaa385eabcd07111007b46128wb;
_BitInt(384) c = (_BitInt(384))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55151|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55148|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #48 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 24.05.2023 um 16:18 schrieb jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
>
> --- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> But then the pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But then the pass effectively has to do lifetime analysis of the _BitInt(N) for
N > 128 etc. SSA_NAMEs and perform the partitioning of those SSA_NAMEs into
VAR_DECLs/PARM_DECLs/RESULT_DECLs, so that we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 May 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
>
> --- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Let's consider some simple testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Let's consider some simple testcase (where one doesn't really mix different
_BitInt sizes etc.).
_BitInt(512)
foo (_BitInt(512) a, _BitInt(512) b, _BitInt(512) c, _BitInt(512) d)
{
return (a + b) - (c +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #44 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 May 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55141|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55094|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #40)
> Created attachment 55094 [details]
> gcc14-bitint-wip.patch
>
> So, on IRC we've agreed with Richi that given the limits we have in the
> compiler
> (what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55056|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #39 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #38)
> I guess there are other options.
> If we could make wide_int/widest_int non-POD, one option would be to turn
> their storage into a union of the normal small
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess there are other options.
If we could make wide_int/widest_int non-POD, one option would be to turn their
storage into a union of the normal small case we use now everywhere (i.e. fixed
one) and one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #37 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If _BitInt constants aren't INTEGER_CST, then all places that expect that
any integer constant expression is folded to an INTEGER_CST will need
updating to handle whatever tree code is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 55056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55056=edit
gcc14-bitint-wip.patch
Just WIP on the top of the above patch, which does parsing of the _BitInt type
specifier in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 55055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55055=edit
gcc14-set-precision.patch
Untested preparation patch which prepares fo the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
George Bott changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||george at bott dot gg
--- Comment #34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Lénárd Szolnoki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leni536 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #32 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> > That said, if C allows us to limit to 128bits then let's do that for now.
> > 32bit targets will still see all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #31 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> I wouldn't go with a new tree code, given semantics are INTEGER_TYPE it should
> be an INTEGER_TYPE.
Implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #30 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have an use case until 1k except I don't need division. It will in handy
while translating P4 language (https://p4.org/p4-spec/docs/P4-16-v-1.2.3.html)
to C. P4 supports any bit size you want and there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #29 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Hi!
On 10/28/22 12:51, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> Quite likely yes (OTOH __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__ changed as well). That
> also means BITINT_MAXWIDTH should eventually be decided by the ABI
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
>
> --- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> Does the C standard limit the number of bits? Does it allow
> implementation defined limits?
The latter. limits.h defines BITINT_MAXWIDTH, which must be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
Some random comments.
I wouldn't go with a new tree code, given semantics are INTEGER_TYPE it should
be an INTEGER_TYPE. The TYPE_PRECISION issue is real - we have 16 spare bits
in tree_type_common so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> Seems LLVM currently only supports _BitInt up to 128, which is kind of useless
> for users, those sizes can be easily
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23)
> What about the large ones? Say for arbitrary size generic vectors we keep
> them in SSA form until late (generic vector lowering) and at that point
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #22 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> PowerPC I think does, not sure about s390.
For s390x see here:
https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > > PowerPC I think does, not sure about s390.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > > PowerPC I think does, not sure about s390.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > PowerPC I think does, not sure about s390.
>
> Does what?
Published psABI which ought to specify how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > PowerPC I think does, not sure about s390.
>
> Does what?
Have a public place to submit issues against
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
