Subject: quad_t shifts (more a standards issue)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Matthias Drochner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/09/1999 22:02:21
While I had to deal with a libkern issue, I considered to
syncronize the files in libc and libkern again.
But I found that there was a change done in libc
which is either wrong or not complete:
In libc/quad/ashrdi3.c, some casts were applied which change
the behaviour wrt sign extension of right shifts.
I don't have access to standards documents; the C99 draft
says that the outcome of right shifts of signed values
is implementation dependant. Should we interpret this as
"dependant, but consistent": if "int" types get sign extended,
"quad" types should too, and sign extension doesn't depend
on the number of bits we shifted by? Or is this really
random, ie we shouldn't care?
s = ((u_long)aa.sl[H] >> (LONG_BITS - 1)) >> 1;
does always give a "0", so we always fill up with zeroes
since that cast went in; without the cast, quads would
inherit the behaviour of longs. If we agree to "random"
bahaviour, that line could be nuked.