> Ah, good point. In which case I don't see what this code is trying to > accomplish relative to falling through to the "prefer the unsigned one" > code below. Shall we just remove it?
I don't know for sure. There was __int128 code there, I replaced it with the "same" code, so as to avoid any functional differences on mainstream targets. I imagine the code is there for when __int128 is the same size as some other types besides long long.
