On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:40 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Digging shows I at one point removed all this code - but people objected and >> I >> had to revert it :/ > > [ oh,, sorry to hear ] I got rid of it as well, and then the test suite beat > on me til I relented. > >> I suppose this kind of cleanup should be done on trunk, without introducing >> wide-int first. > > I expect you meant, should be done on trunk and not the branch, however it > can be read as withholding the wide-int branch from trunk until it is fixed. > You did mean the former, right? If the later I'd object.
Yes, the former. >> Note that rejecting all unsigned masks doesn't make much sense to me, >> so it must be some special-case in the caller that is wrong. > > Agreed, but, it's independent of wide-int. When the wide-int branch goes in, > we will notice if trunk fixed the issue or not and will adjust our code to > match the then current trunk. Fine. Richard.
