On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> This PR was due to code in which -(int) foo was suposed to be sign-extended,
>> but was being ORed with an unsigned int and so ended up being zero-extended.
>> Fixed by using the proper-width type.
>
> As Kost
Richard Sandiford writes:
> This PR was due to code in which -(int) foo was suposed to be sign-extended,
> but was being ORed with an unsigned int and so ended up being zero-extended.
> Fixed by using the proper-width type.
As Kostya rightly said in the PR, this should have had a testcase too.
T
This PR was due to code in which -(int) foo was suposed to be sign-extended,
but was being ORed with an unsigned int and so ended up being zero-extended.
Fixed by using the proper-width type.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu and applied as obvious. Sorry for the breakage.
Thanks,
Richard
gcc/
