On 10/02/14 04:40, Eric Botcazou wrote:
[This is an old discussion about useless integral conversions introduced
behind the back of the front-end by the routines in convert.c]
I don't like re-introducing that inconsistency.
OK.
Maybe instead make convert.c do if (!TYPE_UNSIGNED) unsigned_ty
[This is an old discussion about useless integral conversions introduced
behind the back of the front-end by the routines in convert.c]
> I don't like re-introducing that inconsistency.
OK.
> Maybe instead make convert.c do if (!TYPE_UNSIGNED) unsigned_type_for ()
> instead? I notice that all
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I think that was on purpose to avoid arithmetics in enum types. As those
>> conversions are useless and thus stripped later is it really important
>> to retain enum and boolean kind here?
>
> The problem is that convert.c is called by fron
> I think that was on purpose to avoid arithmetics in enum types. As those
> conversions are useless and thus stripped later is it really important
> to retain enum and boolean kind here?
The problem is that convert.c is called by front-ends and the patch also
removed the callback into them that
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00491.html changed the old
> signed_type_for/unsigned_type_for functions and made them always return an
> integer type, whereas they would previously leave integral types unchanged.
> I d
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00491.html changed the old
signed_type_for/unsigned_type_for functions and made them always return an
integer type, whereas they would previously leave integral types unchanged.
I don't see any justification for the latter and this has the annoyi
