On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > Why add a new loop? It seems to be bogus to not check signedness in > the existing loop (mind that for fixed-point types you need to check > saturating/nonsaturating flag.
We can remove the other loop, if people don't want any of the old semantics. I'll just note, it can break things, though, for ports that are so broken, they can introduce additional signatures to restore how they want it to work. > You miss a testcase where this fix matters. I have a testcase, but it is dependent upon a port that isn't in the tree. I'll plead ignorance of another port that is fixed by the patch.
