On 05/26/2011 12:14 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: >> On 05/26/2011 05:36 AM, Kirill Batuzov wrote: >>>> x = (int32_t)x >> (int32_t)y; >>>> >>> This expression has an implementation-defined behavior accroding to >>> C99 6.5.7 so we decided to emulate signed shifts by hand. >> >> Technically, yes. In practice, no. GCC, ICC, LLVM, MSVC all know >> what the user wants here and will implement it "properly". > > Can't this be probed by configure? Then a wrapper could be introduced > for signed shifts.
I don't see the point. The C99 implementation defined escape hatch exists for weird cpus. Which we won't be supporting as a QEMU host. r~
