Simliarly to shl_with_overflow, we first SHL/SAL the integer, then
SHR/SAR it back to compare if overflow happens.
If overflow happened, set result to the upper limit to make it saturating.
Bug: #17645
Co-authored-by: Jacob Young <jacobly0@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Bingwu Zhang <xtex@aosc.io>
This reverts commit dea72d15da, reversing
changes made to ab381933c8.
The changeset does not work as advertised and does not have sufficient
test coverage.
Reopens#22822
These were previously incremental tests, so weren't running. They didn't
*need* to be incremental. They worked under the old runner because of
how it directly integrated with the compiler so tracked error messages
differently.
Updated solution is future proof for arbitary size integer handling for both strategies .br_table lowering if switch case is dense, .br_if base jump table if values are too sparse.
This can also be extended to ELF later as it means roughly the same thing there.
This addresses the main issue in #21721 but as I don't have a macOS machine to
do further testing on, I can't confirm whether zig cc is able to pass the entire
cgo test suite after this commit. It can, however, cross-compile a basic program
that uses cgo to x86_64-macos-none which previously failed due to lack of -x
support. Unlike previously, the resulting symbol table does not contain local
symbols (such as C static functions).
I believe this satisfies the related donor bounty: https://ziglang.org/news/second-donor-bounty
On my machine, the defaults are 5 seconds (LLDB) and 2 seconds (GDB). These are
too low on the CI machines during high load, and the CI system itself already
enforces a timeout on jobs anyway, so just disable the timeout altogether.
Functions like isMinGW() and isGnuLibC() have a good reason to exist: They look
at multiple components of the target. But functions like isWasm(), isDarwin(),
isGnu(), etc only exist to save 4-8 characters. I don't think this is a good
enough reason to keep them, especially given that:
* It's not immediately obvious to a reader whether target.isDarwin() means the
same thing as target.os.tag.isDarwin() precisely because isMinGW() and similar
functions *do* look at multiple components.
* It's not clear where we would draw the line. The logical conclusion before
this commit would be to also wrap Arch.isX86(), Os.Tag.isSolarish(),
Abi.isOpenHarmony(), etc... this obviously quickly gets out of hand.
* It's nice to just have a single correct way of doing something.
* arm_apcs is the long dead "OABI" which we never had working support for.
* arm_aapcs16_vfp is for arm-watchos-none which is a dead target that we've
dropped support for.
