Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "959211".
Did you mean:
59211
2017 Jun 02
5
RFC: Killing undef and spreading poison
Sanjoy,
My answer is that step 3, commuting the multiply with the sign-extends, is invalid,
As this is what causes the `udiv` to fault. I think it is invalid with or without the “freeze”,
why do you think step 3, the commute, without the “freeze" is valid ?
Also, do you think you can come up with an example that does not depend on signed
overflow being “undefined” ?
Peter