Fangrui Song <i...@maskray.me> writes: > On 2019-11-21, Eric Blake wrote: >>On 11/19/19 2:49 PM, Fangrui Song wrote: >> >>>> >>>>Can we simply drop the offending line statement instead? >>> >>>Fixed in the new patch. >>> >> >>>>The first val * mul above this range is 0x1p64. Rejecting it is >>>>correct, because it overflows yint64_t. >>> >>>I am not subscribed, so apologize that this email may be off the thread. >>> >>>(The binutils mailing list allows a user to download the raw email so I >>>can still reply to a specific email, but this list does not provide such >>>feature.)
There's <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/mbox/qemu-devel/>. >> Actually, it's better to post a v2 patch as a new top-level thread, >> rather than buried as an attachment to a reply to v1, because our CI >> tooling doesn't see through the attachment (nor was it easy for me >> to reply to the v2 patch - I had to open the attachment to paste its >> text inline below...). >> >>More patch submission hints at https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch > > Retitled to [PATCH v2] Good, such versioning is essential to avoid confusion. Next time, start a new top-level thread for v2. Our patch submission processing (automated as well as human) expects that. I just did it for you: "[PATCH v3 0/2] Fix incorrect integer->float conversion caught by clang". Many thanks for your fixes!
