> This case is covered by Wilco's previous reply:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00575.html

Which I don't understand:

> No it's perfectly safe - it becomes an integer-only shift after the
> split since it keeps the masking as part of the pattern.

Let say we have your first example:

long f1(long x, int i)
  return x >> (64 - i);

If "i" is -2, this should be a shift of 66 (which is indeed, technically
undefined), but becomes a shift of 62.  What am I missing?

Reply via email to