https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83710
--- Comment #8 from Chanpreet Singh ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> You shouldn't read random blogs, but the standard of the language you are
> writing in.
> E.g. in n3797.pdf it is in [expr]/10:
> "Otherwise, the integral promo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83710
--- Comment #6 from Chanpreet Singh ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Chanpreet Singh from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > > For imull discussion see
> > > https://stackoverflow.com/que
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83710
--- Comment #4 from Chanpreet Singh ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> For imull discussion see
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42587607/why-is-imul-used-for-
> multiplying-unsigned-numbers .
I understand that. However, can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83710
--- Comment #2 from Chanpreet Singh ---
Can you please clarify a bit? In the above code, there are 3 vairable, c(int),
b(unsigned int) & a(int). The type of 'a*b' is expected to be (int) [same as
type of 'c', as also 'imull' instruction is used].
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chanpreet.singh at nxp dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hello,
For a multiplication between signed and unsigned, I expect the 'sign' of the
result to be same as 'sign' of th
