On 09/14/2018 08:33 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Is there a subtle reason why we're avoiding unsigned truncating conversions of
the form:
[X, +INF]
If the X fits in the new type, why can't we just build [X, +INF] in the new
type?
But (ui
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Is there a subtle reason why we're avoiding unsigned truncating conversions of
> the form:
>
> [X, +INF]
>
> If the X fits in the new type, why can't we just build [X, +INF] in the new
> type?
But (uin8_t)((unsigned)[255,+INF]) aka ([255,+
On 09/14/2018 06:42 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I'm still thinking about this one...
Is there a subtle reason why we're avoiding unsigned truncating
conversions of the form:
[X, +INF]
If the X fits in the new type, why can't we just build [X, +INF] in the
new type? See attached patch
