On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:19:16PM +, David Laight wrote:
> This seems to be somewhat excessive 64bit maths on a 32bit system.
> It is more than enough to make timelo/timehi 'unsigned int'.
Do you see a difference in the generated code?
Thanks,
Richard
From: Colin King
> Sent: 16 February 2018 16:55
>
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The shifting of timehi by 16 bits to the left will be promoted to
> a 32 bit signed int and then sign-extended to an u64. If the top bit
> of timehi is set then all then all the upper bits of ns end up as also
> being s
From: Colin King
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:55:05 +
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The shifting of timehi by 16 bits to the left will be promoted to
> a 32 bit signed int and then sign-extended to an u64. If the top bit
> of timehi is set then all then all the upper bits of ns end up as also
> b