On 10/16/24 11:20, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> Maybe more readable, but wouldn't it be theoretically buggy for u64? >> I'm talking about the case when u64 == UINT_MAX, which will be true >> in your case and false in mine. >> >>> const int pao_ID__ = (__builtin_constant_p(val) && >>> ((val) == 1 || (int)(val) == -1)) ? >>> >>> (int)(val) : 0; > This code _is_ buggy, thanks to my new test case. > > [ 66.161375] pcp -1 (0xffffffffffffffff) != expected 4294967295 (0xffffffff) Thanks for pointing that out Andy (and Peter too)!
