On Sun, Aug 08, 2021 at 03:53:01PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 8/8/21 3:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >Okido. What about the signed char though? > > Sorry, forgot to address that. There are two reasons to keep it as is: > (a) It matches what we have in the old support, and (b) it makes > explicit that we really mean signed. We're trying to replace the old > support without changing type signatures (except in places where there > is a bug and we need to).
Sure, I understand that. But signed char leads to implementation-defined behaviour in parameter passing (it feels natural to pass 128 or 255 here, but neither is standard!) GCC just does mod 256 here, always, but does every compiler that implements these intrinsics? I'm sure I worry too much, but :-) Segher
