From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] kernel: add common infrastructure for unaligned access Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:33:13 +0100 Message-ID: <11989.1207866793@redhat.com> References: <1207866046.22001.53.camel@brick> <1207865183.22001.49.camel@brick> <1207864537.22001.47.camel@brick> <1207856646.22001.25.camel@brick> <11527.1207863801@redhat.com> <11814.1207864864@redhat.com> <11907.1207865758@redhat.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1207866046.22001.53.camel@brick> Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Harvey Harrison Cc: dhowells-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , linux-arch Harvey Harrison wrote: > Well, for the u16 case, won't the compiler warn about truncating the > return if I return an int when the function returns u16? It doesn't for me for: u16 test(const u8 *p) { return (u16) (p[0] | p[1] << 8); } > In the u64 case, I need the cast to ensure it expands to u64 rather than > int from the shift. Agreed in the u32 case, but then it looks different > than the u16/u64 case (cargo-cult I know, but nice for consistency). Agreed, the u64 cast is necessary, but I was talking about casts generally of: function(...) { return () (...); } David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46411 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752693AbYDJWdS (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:33:18 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1207866046.22001.53.camel@brick> References: <1207866046.22001.53.camel@brick> <1207865183.22001.49.camel@brick> <1207864537.22001.47.camel@brick> <1207856646.22001.25.camel@brick> <11527.1207863801@redhat.com> <11814.1207864864@redhat.com> <11907.1207865758@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] kernel: add common infrastructure for unaligned access Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:33:13 +0100 Message-ID: <11989.1207866793@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Harvey Harrison Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , linux-arch Message-ID: <20080410223313.JZX2BYVILbNP2o2nXW0Erxfpc_1KRMitOAK8aKpV52k@z> Harvey Harrison wrote: > Well, for the u16 case, won't the compiler warn about truncating the > return if I return an int when the function returns u16? It doesn't for me for: u16 test(const u8 *p) { return (u16) (p[0] | p[1] << 8); } > In the u64 case, I need the cast to ensure it expands to u64 rather than > int from the shift. Agreed in the u32 case, but then it looks different > than the u16/u64 case (cargo-cult I know, but nice for consistency). Agreed, the u64 cast is necessary, but I was talking about casts generally of: function(...) { return () (...); } David