rjmccall added a comment. In D53738#1333372 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738#1333372>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D53738#1333276 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738#1333276>, @leonardchan > wrote: > > > In D53738#1326071 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738#1326071>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > I'm fine with making this change under the assumption that we've gotten > > > the language rule right. Even if that weren't abstractly reasonable for > > > general language work — and I do think it's reasonable when we have a > > > good-faith question about the right semantics — this is clearly still an > > > experimental implementation and will be for several months yet, and > > > hopefully it won't take that long for us to get a response. > > > > > > @rjmccall Have you received a response yet? If not, do you think you have > > an estimate on the response time, or also mind sharing the contact > > information if that's ok? > > > I just have a coworker who's part of the committee. I think you might be > over-opimistic about how quickly things get answered with the C committee, > though. We should not allow our work to be blocked waiting for a response. The committee was less helpful than I hoped, but what I decided to take away from their response was that we should not artificially lose precision here by separating the signedness conversion from the operation. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
