RE: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()

Paul Mackerras
2006-02-02T22:43:50Z

Chen, Kenneth W writes:

> Christoph Hellwig wrote on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:03 AM
> > Because they are defined to operate on arrays of unsigned long
>
> I think these should be defined to operate on arrays of unsigned int.
> Bit is a bit, no matter how many byte you load (8/16/32/64), you can
> only operate on just one bit.

Christoph is right. Changing to unsigned int would change the layout
on big-endian 64-bit platforms.

Paul.