On 10/19/2013 02:41 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 19, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
As discussed, this patch effectively goes back to your original idea of
having excess upper bits in a HWI being undefined on read (at least as
the default assumption). wide_int itself still ensures
On Oct 19, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> As discussed, this patch effectively goes back to your original idea of
> having excess upper bits in a HWI being undefined on read (at least as
> the default assumption). wide_int itself still ensures that the excess
> bits are stored as s
Hi Kenny,
As discussed, this patch effectively goes back to your original idea of
having excess upper bits in a HWI being undefined on read (at least as
the default assumption). wide_int itself still ensures that the excess
bits are stored as signs though.
This patch is already quite big, so I'v
