On 5 June 2015 at 16:55, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
The GCC manual says GCC does not use the latitude given in C99 and C11
only to treat certain aspects of signed '' as undefined, but this is
subject to change. It would certainly be nice if they removed the
this is subject to
On 05/06/2015 17:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
...but things like (1U 31) are entirely valid.
They're only valid until someone does a ~ on them. I think it's
reasonable to forbid them in our coding standards, if we want to fix
ubsan's warning of (1 31).
I don't think it's reasonable for
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The GCC manual says GCC does not use the latitude given in C99 and C11
only to treat certain aspects of signed '' as undefined, but this is
subject to change. It would certainly be nice if they removed the
this is subject to change part.
The correct
