hjl.tools added a comment. >> The choice that high bits are unspecified rather than extended is an >> interesting one. Can you speak to that? That's good for +, -, *, &, |, ^, >> <<, and narrowing conversions, but bad for ==, <, /, >>, and widening >> conversions. > > I've added @hjl.tools to the review for his opinions, as he was the primary > driver for the x64 ABI proposal. HJ, can you help me out here?
Please follow up x86-64 psABI proposal with any feedbacks: https://groups.google.com/g/x86-64-abi/c/XQiSj-zU3w8 CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
