mclow.lists marked an inline comment as done.
mclow.lists added inline comments.
================
Comment at: libcxx/include/bit:378
+ const unsigned __retVal = 1u << (__n + __extra);
+ return (_Tp) (__retVal >> __extra);
+ }
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Why so complicated? Is there a unit test that demonstrates why you can't just
> use `return _Tp{1} << __n;` in this case as well?
>
> Also, is this a kosher use of `sizeof(X) * 8` as a stand-in for
> `numeric_limits<X>::digits`?
>
> Also, speaking of unit tests, I don't see any unit tests for e.g.
> `std::ceil2(256)` or `std::ceil2(65536)`. Shouldn't there be some?
Yes. I want to generate some UB here, so that this is not a "core constant
expression" as per P1355.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51262/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51262
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
