> But nobody is going to understand why the INTEGER_CST case goes the > other way.
I can add a fat comment to that effect of course. :-) > As you say we don't have a good way to say we're doing > this to avoid undefined behavior, but then a view-convert back would > be a good way to indicate that? I can't come up with a better name > for a custom operator we could also use, > > (convert_without_overflow (negate (convert:utype @1)))) > > maybe? As said, if view_convert works I prefer that. Does it? Well, VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR adds its own set of problems in GENERIC and it will precisely survive when it is not needed, so I'm not sure that's any better. -- Eric Botcazou
