On Jun 24, 2024, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
> A signed shift right on a 16-bit vector element by 15 would still > yield -1 Yeah. Indeed, ISTM that we *could* have retained the clamping transformation for *signed* shifts, since the clamping would only make a difference in case of (undefined) overflow. Only for unsigned shifts can well-defined shifts yield different results with clamping. Richard (Sandiford), do you happen to recall why the IRC conversation mentioned in the PR trail decided to drop it entirely, even for signed types? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
