https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113837
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Ugh no, please don't. > This is significant ABI change. > First of all, zeroing even for signed _BitInt is very weird, sign extension > for that case is more natural, but when _BitInt doesn't have any unspecified > bits, everything that computes them will need to compute even the extra > bits. That is not the case in the current code. Can we compare zeroing and undefined codegen of unused bits for storing signed _BitInt?
