Re: [patch, Fortran] Introduce unsigned versions of MASKL and MASKR
On 11/2/24 8:44 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: Ping **(5./7.) ? MASKR and MASKL are obvious candidates for unsigned, too; in the previous version of the doc patch, I had promised that these would take unsigned arguments in the future. What I had in mind was they could take an unsigned argument and return an unsigned result. Thinking about this a bit more, I realized that this was actually a bad idea; nowhere else do we allow UNSIGNED for bit counting, and things like checking for negative number of bits (which is illegal) would not work. Hence, two new intrinsics, UMASKL and UMASKR. Regressoin-tesed (and this time, I added the intrinsics to the list, so no trouble expected there :-) OK for trunk? Yes, LGTM Jerry
Re: [patch, Fortran] Introduce unsigned versions of MASKL and MASKR
Ping **(5./7.) ? MASKR and MASKL are obvious candidates for unsigned, too; in the previous version of the doc patch, I had promised that these would take unsigned arguments in the future. What I had in mind was they could take an unsigned argument and return an unsigned result. Thinking about this a bit more, I realized that this was actually a bad idea; nowhere else do we allow UNSIGNED for bit counting, and things like checking for negative number of bits (which is illegal) would not work. Hence, two new intrinsics, UMASKL and UMASKR. Regressoin-tesed (and this time, I added the intrinsics to the list, so no trouble expected there :-) OK for trunk?
