On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 8:24 PM Andrew Jones wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:21:13AM GMT, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 13/8/24 10:00, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 05:43:07PM GMT, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > > On 8/13/24 17:13, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > C d
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:21:13AM GMT, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 13/8/24 10:00, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 05:43:07PM GMT, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > On 8/13/24 17:13, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > C doesn't extend the sign bit for unsigned types since there isn't a
On 13/8/24 10:00, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 05:43:07PM GMT, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/13/24 17:13, Andrew Jones wrote:
C doesn't extend the sign bit for unsigned types since there isn't a
sign bit to extend. This means a promotion of a u32 to a u64 results
in the upper 32
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 05:43:07PM GMT, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 8/13/24 17:13, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > C doesn't extend the sign bit for unsigned types since there isn't a
> > sign bit to extend. This means a promotion of a u32 to a u64 results
> > in the upper 32 bits of the u64 being zero.
On 8/13/24 17:13, Andrew Jones wrote:
C doesn't extend the sign bit for unsigned types since there isn't a
sign bit to extend. This means a promotion of a u32 to a u64 results
in the upper 32 bits of the u64 being zero. If that result is then
used as a mask on another u64 the upper 32 bits will b
C doesn't extend the sign bit for unsigned types since there isn't a
sign bit to extend. This means a promotion of a u32 to a u64 results
in the upper 32 bits of the u64 being zero. If that result is then
used as a mask on another u64 the upper 32 bits will be cleared. rv32
physical addresses may b
