On 10/28/2015 12:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 28, 2015 7:07:54 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com>
wrote:
On 10/28/2015 10:47 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
Hello Richard,
Your commit to fix PR 65000 (pasted below) introduced
gcc_assert (ri = (int)ri);
I'm unclear what is meant there; if equality test was meant, that
looks
suspicious to me because truncating conversion is
implementation-defined.
Of course equality was meant. And since the argument to bitmap_set_bit
is of
type int, the same truncation would happen there. So this just
verifies that
we don't lose information during the conversion.
Since implementation defined doesn't mean undefined, I see no problem.
And ri == 0 cannot happen?
IIRC, 0 is reserved for nothrow, so exception indicies are 1 based.
That said, I've fixed the assert in the obvious way.
r~
