[patch] Fix for PR c/11449. (take 2)

[Neil Booth]

Kazu Hirata wrote:-

> +
> +int
> +foo (int m)
> +{
> +  return !(m & ((int) 0x80000000));
> +}

Tests should at least contain a comment explaining how/why they used
to fail.  This will be incomprehensible in 6 months time to someone
even who read this post.

Neil.