On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 22:27, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> I wonder if I have the energy to petition the committee to drop, for C202? all
> of the "undefined" nonsense that only applies to sign-magnitute and
> ones-compliment computers, which haven't been seen since the 70's...
There was certainly
On 3/27/20 3:09 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 09:49, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> The undefined behaviour checker pointed out that a shift of 64 would
>> lead to undefined behaviour.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée
>> ---
>> fpu/softfloat.c | 11 ---
>> 1 file changed, 8
Aleksandar Markovic writes:
> 11:53 Pet, 27.03.2020. Alex Bennée је написао/ла:
>>
>> The undefined behaviour checker
>
> Alex, what exactly is "undefined behaviour checker"? If this is a test, can
> you give us a link?
It's enabled by our sanitizers build:
../../configure --cc=clang-8 --c
11:53 Pet, 27.03.2020. Alex Bennée је написао/ла:
>
> The undefined behaviour checker
Alex, what exactly is "undefined behaviour checker"? If this is a test, can
you give us a link?
Sincerely,
Aleksandar
> pointed out that a shift of 64 would
> lead to undefined behaviour.
>
> Signed-off-by: Al
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 09:49, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> The undefined behaviour checker pointed out that a shift of 64 would
> lead to undefined behaviour.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée
> ---
> fpu/softfloat.c | 11 ---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fpu
The undefined behaviour checker pointed out that a shift of 64 would
lead to undefined behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée
---
fpu/softfloat.c | 11 ---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fpu/softfloat.c b/fpu/softfloat.c
index 301ce3b537b..444d35920dd 100644
