On 10/24/2017 12:24 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew MacLeod writes:
On 10/19/2017 04:22 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Sandiford writes:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
gcc/
* wide-int-print.cc (print_hex): Loop based on extract_uhwi.
Don't print any bits outside the p
On 10/24/2017 10:24 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Andrew MacLeod writes:
>> On 10/19/2017 04:22 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Richard Sandiford writes:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Andrew MacLeod writes:
>>> On
Andrew MacLeod writes:
> On 10/19/2017 04:22 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford writes:
>>> Aldy Hernandez writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Andrew MacLeod writes:
>> On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Ald
On 10/19/2017 04:22 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Sandiford writes:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Andrew MacLeod writes:
On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
Hi folks!
Calling print_hex() on a
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Aldy Hernandez writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Andrew MacLeod writes:
On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Aldy Hernandez writes:
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> Calling print_hex() on a widest_int wi
On 10/18/2017 06:39 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
Ah! OK. Yeah, I agree it doesn't make sense to print sign-extension
bits above the precision. I think it'd work if print_hex used
extract_uhwi insteead of elt, whic
Aldy Hernandez writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Andrew MacLeod writes:
>>> On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
> Hi folks!
>
> Calling print_hex() on a widest_int with the most significant bit turned
>>
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Andrew MacLeod writes:
>> On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Aldy Hernandez writes:
Hi folks!
Calling print_hex() on a widest_int with the most significant bit turned
on can lead to a leading zero b
Andrew MacLeod writes:
> On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Aldy Hernandez writes:
>>> Hi folks!
>>>
>>> Calling print_hex() on a widest_int with the most significant bit turned
>>> on can lead to a leading zero being printed (0x0). This produces
>>> confusing dumps to sa
On 10/17/2017 08:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
Hi folks!
Calling print_hex() on a widest_int with the most significant bit turned
on can lead to a leading zero being printed (0x0). This produces
confusing dumps to say the least, especially when you incorrectly
On Oct 17, 2017, at 5:18 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Aldy Hernandez writes:
>> This produces confusing dumps to say the least
> That's the intended behaviour though.
> 0x0 -> (1 << 32) - 1 to infinite precision
> (i.e. a positive value)
> 0x -> -1
Aldy Hernandez writes:
> Hi folks!
>
> Calling print_hex() on a widest_int with the most significant bit turned
> on can lead to a leading zero being printed (0x0). This produces
> confusing dumps to say the least, especially when you incorrectly assume
> an integer is NOT signed :).
T
12 matches
Mail list logo