Hi!
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:51:27AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > 2017-03-24 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR c/80163
> > * expr.c : For EXPAND_INITIALIZER determine SIGN_EXTEND
> > vs. ZERO_EXTEND based on signedness of treeop0's type rather than
> > signedness of the result type.
> >
On 03/24/2017 12:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As can be seen on the following testcase, when expanding an extension
in EXPAND_INITIALIZER context, we emit wrong extension operation
(one depending on the signedness of the result type rather than
on the signedness of the argument type, so e.g.
Hi!
As can be seen on the following testcase, when expanding an extension
in EXPAND_INITIALIZER context, we emit wrong extension operation
(one depending on the signedness of the result type rather than
on the signedness of the argument type, so e.g. extension of
unsigned int to long long int is d
