On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 05:38:53PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > OK, thanks. I should have realised this earlier, but we have:
> > >
> > > /* Return 1 if EXPR is the integer constant one or the corre
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 03:15:44PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> What should integer_onep mean if we have a signed 1-bit bitfield in
> >> which the bit is set? Seen as a 1-bit value it's "obviously" 1,
> >> but seen
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 05:38:53PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
OK, thanks. I should have realised this earlier, but we have:
/* Return 1 if EXPR is the integer constant one or the corresponding
complex constant. */
int
integer_onep (const_tree
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 05:38:53PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> OK, thanks. I should have realised this earlier, but we have:
>
> /* Return 1 if EXPR is the integer constant one or the corresponding
>complex constant. */
>
> int
> integer_onep (const_tree expr)
> ...
> /* Return 1 if E
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 03:15:44PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> What should integer_onep mean if we have a signed 1-bit bitfield in
>> which the bit is set? Seen as a 1-bit value it's "obviously" 1,
>> but seen as a value extended to infinite precision it's -1.
>>
>
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 03:15:44PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> What should integer_onep mean if we have a signed 1-bit bitfield in
> which the bit is set? Seen as a 1-bit value it's "obviously" 1,
> but seen as a value extended to infinite precision it's -1.
>
> Current mainline returns fal
