[PATCH] D79936: [FileCheck] Add function call support to numerical expressions.

[Thomas Preud'homme via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

thopre added a comment.

In D79936#2062802 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936#2062802>, @paulwalker-arm wrote:

> Prefix aside I'm just doing another rebase to bring in the signedness work. I'd like to know if it's going to be a requirement to support the reporting of overflow/underflow for the builtins in my patch.  Originally I had gone down the llvm route of making the operations signed rather than the data but I see the signedness patch implements the opposite.  Ultimately I need to know if there's light at the end of the tunnel or whether to give up and just write ugly tests.


Using signed operation would mean throwing overflow when the result could be represented in uint64_t in some cases which felt weird, especially since we support unsigned values (e.g. addresses).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936