Reid Spencer wrote:
>
>> - for (uint64_t Shift = 64 >> 1; Shift; Shift >>= 1) {
>> + for (unsigned Shift = 64 >> 1; Shift; Shift >>= 1) {
>>
>
> Why not uint32_t? For conformity with the rest of your changes?
The size of a shift amount is unrelated to the size of the function's
argument, so there's no reason not to use the "natural" integer size.
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
