Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 02:04:45PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Not sure what to call it. Maybe canonize_uhwi? Like canonize, except
>> that it takes a uhwi instead of a length.
>>
>> > Can that be done as a follow-up? Certainly it would need
>> > to take the uhwi
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 02:04:45PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Not sure what to call it. Maybe canonize_uhwi? Like canonize, except
> that it takes a uhwi instead of a length.
>
> > Can that be done as a follow-up? Certainly it would need
> > to take the uhwi to store, pointer to the arra
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:31:05PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Might be wrong, but couldn't the same thing happen for the remainder,
>> e.g. for 0xfffe % 0x ?
>
> You're right, that is broken too. Adjusted patch below.
>
>> Maybe we should have a helper
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:31:05PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Might be wrong, but couldn't the same thing happen for the remainder,
> e.g. for 0xfffe % 0x ?
You're right, that is broken too. Adjusted patch below.
> Maybe we should have a helper
> function to handle storing uh
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> As the testcase shows, wide_int unsigned division is broken for > 64bit
> precision division of unsigned dividend which have 63rd bit set, and all
> higher bits cleared (thus is normalized as 2 HWIs, first with MSB set,
> the second 0) and divisor of 1, we return just a sin
Hi!
As the testcase shows, wide_int unsigned division is broken for > 64bit
precision division of unsigned dividend which have 63rd bit set, and all
higher bits cleared (thus is normalized as 2 HWIs, first with MSB set,
the second 0) and divisor of 1, we return just a single HWI, which is
equivale
