On 22 August 2013 10:48, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: > Il 22/08/2013 11:47, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> We can avoid relying on implementation defined >> behaviour here by using >> .hi = (a < 0) ? -1 : 0; >> >> (I know we allow ourselves to assume right-shift of signed >> ints is arithmetic shift, but I think it's nicer to avoid it unless >> it really makes the code better.) > > This is what Alexey proposed. I suggested (a >> 63) without the ?: but > he misunderstood my (probably not clear enough) suggestion.
Yes, I found that email thread after sending this. I think the (a < 0) variant is better than using a shift (with or without the ?: operator). -- PMM
