On 18 October 2013 22:55:39 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:54PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 6:11 AM, Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
> >>> Does this look ok? Kenny, can you double check the cases, think I
have them right, but? a double check would be good.
> >> That works for me.
> >> > i talked to mike about this last night, but did not follow up with
an email until now. The problem is that this code is wrong!!! He is
working to fix that and so i would expect something from him later
(tomorrow for those in europe).
> Ok, updated the patch, here is what I checked in:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/wide-int.h b/gcc/wide-int.h
> index 2ff130b..738ae11 100644
> --- a/gcc/wide-int.h
> +++ b/gcc/wide-int.h
> @@ -185,7 +185,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> assuming t is a int_cst.
> - Note that the bits above the precision are not defined and the
> + Note, the bits past the precision up to the nearest HOST_WDE_INT
WIDE?
s/positve/positive/g
falls into the same category, without commenting on the patch itself.
Thanks,
Jakub
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
