On 2018-01-17 18:06:49 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-01-17 17:23:02 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > > > Indeed, it doesn't make sense to have both the assertion and > > > COUNT_LEADING_ZEROS_0. Would it work to remove the assertion instead? > > > > Yes, this works too (assuming that 0 will always be converted to +0). > > You know those details better than me, is that a dangerous assumption to > make? Even when restricted to the architectures / compilers that may use > this code? I was expecting it to be rather safe, but if you think it isn't, > then I'd rather go with your original patch.
I know that both icc -O2 and tcc had issues with signed zeros in the past. But I haven't done any test for several years. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) _______________________________________________ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs