[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

Iain Buclaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P1  |P3

--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

Walter Bright  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||backend

--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

--- Comment #5 from Dlang Bot  ---
@WalterBright created dlang/dmd pull request #11306 "fix Issue 18734 - bitnum
parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed" fixing this issue:

- fix Issue 18734 - bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/11306

--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

Dlang Bot  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||pull

--- Comment #4 from Dlang Bot  ---
@WalterBright created dlang/druntime pull request #3141 "fix Issue 18734 -
bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed" fixing this issue:

- fix Issue 18734 - bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/3141

--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

Walter Bright  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com

--- Comment #3 from Walter Bright  ---
Huh, you are right. This:

https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/bt

doesn't mention it's signed, but the AMD reference says it is.

--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

--- Comment #2 from ag0aep6g  ---
(In reply to uplink.coder from comment #1)
> DMD does not recognize bodies only function signatures.
> So change it all you like :) it's only going to be used on systems where the
> intrinsic can't work.

core.bitop.bt is not an intrinsic. The expression in the body is recognized by
the optimizer.

--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

uplink.co...@googlemail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||uplink.co...@googlemail.com

--- Comment #1 from uplink.co...@googlemail.com ---
DMD does not recognize bodies only function signatures.
So change it all you like :) it's only going to be used on systems where the
intrinsic can't work.

--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

ag0aep6g  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||18750


Referenced Issues:

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18750
[Issue 18750] [Tracker] everything wrong with code generation for bt
instruction
--

[Issue 18734] bitnum parameter of core.bitop.bt should be signed

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18734

Ketmar Dark  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org

--