Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 17:39:44 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2017-04-07 13:50, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:31:25 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> [...]
GC> > GC> Let me decompose the implementation into four separate function 
templates
GC> > GC> so that clang can compile it and we can then reexamine this.
GC> > 
GC> >  Just to be clear: the difference in test results is due solely to
GC> > architecture, not compiler. I.e. it's not clang-specific, all versions of
GC> > g++ (4, 5, 6) also pass the tests with my original "fix" in 64 bits but
GC> > fail them in 32 bits.
GC> 
GC> Does commit b87d1dde7b63482b872bffeb998f711f37d4d08a fix all the
GC> unexpected test failures?

 Yes, the test now passes with clang (and still passes with g++ 6), thanks!
VZ