On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
> OK, I've checked that document, and there's also a comment with it.
> Apparently someone spotted this before.
>
> @c ??? We've always claimed that pointers were unsigned entities.
> @c Shouldn't we therefore be doing zero-extension? If so, t
On 23 November 2013 10:46, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Iain Buclaw writes:
>
>> Currently, GCC is converting the expression to a signed integer
>> instead of an unsigned one. Does a test for the testsuite need to be
>> written for this?
>
> The C standard makes this implementation-defined, and GCC d
Iain Buclaw writes:
> Currently, GCC is converting the expression to a signed integer
> instead of an unsigned one. Does a test for the testsuite need to be
> written for this?
The C standard makes this implementation-defined, and GCC defines it
like this (*Note (gcc) Arrays and pointers implem
Hi,
This is a one line patch to an unexpected behaviour noticed from ARM
and x86 when testing the D frontend.
---
import core.stdc.stdio;
import core.stdc.stdint;
void test(void* p)
{
uint64_t pl = cast(uint64_t)p;
uint64_t p2 = cast(uint64_t)cast(int)p;
int tmp = cast(int)p;
uin
