On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> And by ensuring we never create 1-bit signed BITINT_TYPE e.g. the backends
> don't need to worry about them.
>
> But I admit I don't feel strongly about that.
>
> Joseph, what do you think about this?
I think it's appropriate to avoid
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:27:18AM +, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > And, also I think it is undesirable when being asked for signed_type_for
> > of unsigned _BitInt(1) (which is valid) to get signed _BitInt(1) (which is
> > invalid, the standard only allo
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When discussing PR111369 with Andrew Pinski, I've realized that
> I haven't added BITINT_TYPE handling to range_check_type. Right now
> (unsigned) max + 1 == (unsigned) min for signed _BitInt,l so I think we
> don't need to do the extra hops fo
Hi!
When discussing PR111369 with Andrew Pinski, I've realized that
I haven't added BITINT_TYPE handling to range_check_type. Right now
(unsigned) max + 1 == (unsigned) min for signed _BitInt,l so I think we
don't need to do the extra hops for BITINT_TYPE (though possibly we don't
need them for I
