Paul Eggert wrote:
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eh? How is testing if ((1<<1)>>1) == 1 "too strict"?
It's not. But it wasn't clear from your earlier posting whether the
failure was 1LL<<1>>1 or 1LL<<63>>63. The latter is not required to
yield 1 (assuming long long is 64 bits), because C doesn't define the
semantics of right shift of a negative integer.
My apologies. I thought "all tests fail" was clear enough, but I see it
wasn't. Sorry about that. :-)
btw, was I supposed to see something different from your version? It
is admittedly much more platform-agnostic (I wasn't trying :-)), but I
didn't see anything that would cause me to expect yours to give
different results.
Good. That's what we want. We want a test case that fails
reliably on your platform but should succeed reliably on any
conforming host.
That it should. :-) Glad to help out (and again, I really appreciate all
the support on your end as well).
I installed the following patch into gnulib and will install
something similar into Autoconf shortly.
[snip patch]
Thanks again!
--
Matthew
If this message is intercepted, the sender will disavow all knowledge of
its existence.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
