Hi, On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Is there a subtle reason why we're avoiding unsigned truncating conversions of > the form: > > [X, +INF] > > If the X fits in the new type, why can't we just build [X, +INF] in the new > type? But (uin8_t)((unsigned)[255,+INF]) aka ([255,+INF] & 255) isn't [255,+INF] but rather [0,+INF]. What am I missing? Even considering that the caller must canonicalize, I don't see how that would transform [255,+INF] (which is a normal range) into [0,+INF]. Ciao, Michael.
