Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
>>> Are you going to add "unsafe" version later, or is it not useful at all?
>>
>> I do not have a use myself for unsafe versions, but I will add them if
>> you think they are a good idea. Let me know.
>
> What is your opinion on this issue?
Oh, sorry, it wasn't my intention to block the patch getting in. Just
wondered if there is any expected flaw in the "unsafe" version (e.g. it
would be a duplicate of u{8,16,32}_prev?). If the lack of use-case is
the only reason, it should be fine to skip it for now.
