On 4/22/11, Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@bitrange.com wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 22:01, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
+unsigned char too_many_directives_for_bitfield[
+N_DIRECTIVES = (1 CPP_HASHNODE_INDEX_BITS)
+? 1 : -1];
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 22:01, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
+unsigned char too_many_directives_for_bitfield[
+ N_DIRECTIVES = (1 CPP_HASHNODE_INDEX_BITS)
+ ? 1 : -1];
Heh, I'm not sure what to think of this trick. I think
Diego == Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
Unfortunately, five bits are not sufficient for the alternate use of
cpp_hashnode.directive_index as a named operator index. So, I have reverted
the number of bits from five back to seven. As a result, we now have 34 bits
in small fields,
On 4/16/11, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Apr 14, 2011 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
Unfortunately, five bits are not sufficient for the alternate
use of cpp_hashnode.directive_index as a named operator index.
So, I have reverted the number of bits from five back to
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 22:01, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
Unfortunately, five bits are not sufficient for the alternate use of
cpp_hashnode.directive_index as a named operator index. So, I have reverted
the number of bits from five back to seven. As a result, we now have 34 bits
An earlier change reduced the number of bits in cpp_hashnode.directive_index
from 7 to 5, as that was sufficient for indexing the directives. Tom Tromey
asked for a static check on the size. This patch adds that check.
Unfortunately, five bits are not sufficient for the alternate use of
