Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> These are fine.
Thanks. I'll hold off applying it until the java fix has been reviewed
(which could be after the merge -- no need to hold it up for this IMO).
Richard
>
> On 05/02/2014 03:20 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This patch adds some assertions against sext (
These are fine.
On 05/02/2014 03:20 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch adds some assertions against sext (.., 0) and zext (..., 0).
The former is undefined at the sext_hwi level and the latter is disallowed
for consistency with the former.
Also, set_bit (rightly IMO) can't handle bit >= pr
This patch adds some assertions against sext (.., 0) and zext (..., 0).
The former is undefined at the sext_hwi level and the latter is disallowed
for consistency with the former.
Also, set_bit (rightly IMO) can't handle bit >= precision. For
precision <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT it would invoke un
