On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int
On 10/30/2013 02:34 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bitsizetype is TImode on x86_64 and others, so I don't think it's
necessarily true that all
On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bitsizetype is TImode on x86_64 and others, so I
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/30/2013 07:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
-
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bitsizetype is TImode on x86_64 and others, so I don't think it's
necessarily true that all offset_ints are signed. (widest_int are
though.)
- As discussed in the early threads, I think the first
On 10/29/2013 06:37 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch tries to update the main wide_int comment to reflect the current
implementation.
- bitsizetype is TImode on x86_64 and others, so I don't think it's
necessarily true that all offset_ints are signed. (widest_int are
though.)
i am