Andrew Teylu <andrewvaugh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I am not sure the arithmetic on unsigned types is what clang is unhappy >> about, though. Perhaps it dislikes the xor with "neg", which is a >> signed variable.
I can't say precisely what implicit conversions happen according to the spec: Unsigned to signed is always well defined, but the other direction only if the converted value fits. It may also depend on whether or not mp_limb_t is larger than int. Does it make any difference if you change the "1" constants to "1u" ? I see no good reason to involve any signed values here, though. Maybe the variable neg, and the return value, should be changed to mp_limb_t, or at least unsigned int? > I guess maybe a different question is: what is that code supposed to > do? Is the intent to `xor` with `0xFFFFFFFF` if the `k` is even and > `xor` with `0` if the `k` is odd (i.e., it either flips all the bits > in the even case or leaves them in the odd case)? I think intention is to conditionally flip all the bits. And in addition, neg should always be either all ones or all zeros. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP key CB4962D070D77D7FCB8BA36271D8F1FF368C6677. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
