Re: [PATCH v2] Expand bitpos and type.length to LONGEST and ULONGEST

Doug Evans
2012-05-20T15:43:10Z

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
<siddhesh@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:19:11 +0200, Jan wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:50:12 +0200, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> > It would be safer in this case to keep length as LONGEST because
>> > while I did try to check for all cases where ULONGEST may cause a
>> > regression (like above), but I cannot say for sure that it's all
>> > perfect.
>>
>> But type->length was already unsigned before.  I think it is fine to
>> keep type->length ULONGEST, there should be no regression due to it.
>> We agree that unsigned type (ULONGEST) is right for type->length.
>>
>> I meant more all the local variables turned signed->unsigned or
>> unsigned->signed.
>
> Ah ok, I misread that. I'll watch out for that.
>
> Thanks,
> Siddhesh

Since it's now ok to use int64_t,uint64_t (right?) I wonder if we
should move away from LONGEST,ULONGEST.
[I remember a port Cygnus once did where long long was 128 bits. 1/2 :-)]