On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Emil Renner Berthing <ker...@esmil.dk> wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 13:23, Björn Töpel <bjorn.to...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] > > Indeed. And nice work! Can you respin the patch with the 32b fix > > above, and also without the RFC tag? > > Yes, of course. If you don't mind I'll wait a bit and let this collect > a bit more comments. >
Certainly! > > Curious; Why is [branch ? 1 : 0] needed when coding the boolean into > > the key pointer (arm64 is just [branch]). Different encoding of > > booleans (branch in this case)? > > No, that was just me being unsure exactly how bool works when used as > an index. After reading up on it it seems the original code is right, > you can actually trust that _Bool is either 0 or 1. I'll fix it in the > next version. Thanks! > Cool! Thanks for clearing that up for me! Cheers, Björn
