Il 22/08/2013 11:47, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 22 August 2013 10:09, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Il 22/08/2013 10:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:
>>> +static inline Int128 int128_exts64(int64_t a)
>>> +{
>>> + return (Int128) { .lo = a, .hi = (a >> 63) ? -1 : 0 };
>>> +}
>>
>> The "? -1 : 0" is not necessary, but the compiler will remove it at -O1
>> or more (interestingly, or -O0 it will remove the shift and leave the
>> conditional!).
>
> We can avoid relying on implementation defined
> behaviour here by using
> .hi = (a < 0) ? -1 : 0;
>
> (I know we allow ourselves to assume right-shift of signed
> ints is arithmetic shift, but I think it's nicer to avoid it unless
> it really makes the code better.)
This is what Alexey proposed. I suggested (a >> 63) without the ?: but
he misunderstood my (probably not clear enough) suggestion.
Paolo
