On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 1:21 PM Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel
wrote:
> > And the consequence is that even if we eventually have native 128-bit
> > integer support, the problem will persist but now for Int128?
>
> Yes, unless we would only support/use it for intermediate results.
Thanks for explaining
On 01/01/2022 13:01, Bart via fpc-devel wrote:
OK, let me see if I understand it correctly now:
1. (Signed) Int64 := unsigned(32-16-8bit) + unsigned(32-16-8-bit) +
signed(32-16-8-bit)
gets evaluated with unsigned 64-bit arithmetic and then the test for
Correct.
How to workaround (1) then, o
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 1:05 PM Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel
wrote:
> > Nor why it only triggers with Byte + Byte + Unsigned, and not with
>
> In you original mail, you said it triggered for Byte + Byte + Signed.
Yes, of course, the original mail is correct.
> It doesn't trigger for Byte + *Signed
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 10:43 PM Sven Barth via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> Christo Crause via fpc-devel schrieb am
> Fr., 31. Dez. 2021, 16:58:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 4:41 PM Marco Borsari via fpc-devel <
>> fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> on
