On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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.
Well, it's clearly a bug to return sth that does not match the requested signedness. So, yes, please have only one loop. Thanks, Richard. >> 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.
