On 27/02/16 11:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:39:59AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 26/02/16 21:28, Bradley Lucier wrote:
>>> Any advice on how to proceed? I'd be willing to write and test the few
>>> lines of code myself if I knew where to put them.
>>
>> The best thing
On 02/26/2016 09:28 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
Perhaps this question is appropriate for the gcc mail list.
Converting a float/double to unsigned int is undefined if the result would be
negative when converted to a signed int.
x86-64 and arm treat this condition differently---x86-64 returns a val
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:39:59AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 26/02/16 21:28, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> > Any advice on how to proceed? I'd be willing to write and test the few
> > lines of code myself if I knew where to put them.
>
> The best thing, rather than warning, would be to define th
On 26/02/16 21:28, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> Any advice on how to proceed? I'd be willing to write and test the few
> lines of code myself if I knew where to put them.
The best thing, rather than warning, would be to define this
conversion as a GCC extension and implement it consistently
everywher
Perhaps this question is appropriate for the gcc mail list.
Converting a float/double to unsigned int is undefined if the result
would be negative when converted to a signed int.
x86-64 and arm treat this condition differently---x86-64 returns a value
whose bit pattern is the same as the bit
