This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: designated initializer vs. long long for i386 assembler

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:21:34PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:14:12PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I need much more than 2 bits, which won't fit in the current
> > 32bit int.
> 
> Then I suggest adding another field.  I don't think we can force
> people to use a C99 compiler to build binutils.

Adding another field will lead to massive changes to x86 assembler.
I will use long long if C99 feature isn't desirable.

BTW, I compared long long vs int. There is not much slow down in
assembler.

H.J.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]