labath added a comment. In D111052#3042184 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111052#3042184>, @mgorny wrote:
> In D111052#3042181 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111052#3042181>, @labath wrote: > >> So I guess all that's left to do is to add some cast to placate compilers ? > > Nah, my original logic checks for overflow and replaces the value with `0` if > one occurs (which IMO is more correct than truncating the value). I was talking about the warning Raphael ran into. We already discussed truncation vs 0 on the initial patch. I don't think we need to strictly copy gdb behavior here, though I would also be fine with changing it. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111052/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111052 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
