Hi, On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
> > If the high bit of i1 is set then currently you will get a negative > > number produced no matter the absolute value of it. > > Ok, in the new patch, I'm pushing to change the spec so that the value > is sign extended and fixing all the code that doesn't conform to that > spec. That certainly is strictly better than any of the other possibilities, I just didn't get the impression from your second mail to this thread that you were even considering doing that. Good I was wrong. If I notice anything I'll answer directly to the patch. > > This positive/negative inconsistency doesn't make sense to allow, and > > the assert ensures that it isn't allowed. > > Don't need the assert when there is no inconsistency, I believe that > resolving any inconsistencies should remove the need for the assert. Correct. > :-) Only the point I wanted to make; that 0 is safe. As such, it > proves that the spec, as you might call it, is wrong. I would call it too strict, not wrong. Because there are (or were after your fixes get it) values where there was a problem. Of course that's again just splitting hair about terminology :) Ciao, Michael.
