On 27/02/16 11:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:39:59AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 26/02/16 21:28, Bradley Lucier wrote: >>> Any advice on how to proceed? I'd be willing to write and test the few >>> lines of code myself if I knew where to put them. >> >> The best thing, rather than warning, would be to define this >> conversion as a GCC extension and implement it consistently >> everywhere. Then we wouldn't need a warning, and there'd be >> one fewer trap. > > I disagree. That would slow down most of uses that use it when they know > the floating point value must be non-negative, for the benefit > of the few that invoke implementation defined behavior.
Would it really slow things down significantly? If so, perhaps I can see the point of this restriction. Andrew.