From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:42:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46C38156.8060502@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070815222355.GA5069@one.firstfloor.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --]
I apologize for sending a separate cover letter for a single patch.
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> The return type of __scanbit() doesn't match the return type of
>> find_{first,next}_bit(). Thus when you construct something like
>> this:
>>
>> boolean ? __scanbit() : find_first_bit()
>
> Why would you want to write this? What is boolean?
> Do they have different arguments?
So here's the definition of the x86_64 find_first_bit() macro, straight
from include/x86_64/bitops.h:
#define find_first_bit(addr,size) \
((__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size) <= BITS_PER_LONG ? \
(__scanbit(*(unsigned long *)addr,(size))) : \
find_first_bit(addr,size)))
In this case "boolean" is:
__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size) <= BITS_PER_LONG
the first arm of the conditional is:
__scanbit(*(unsigned long *)addr,(size))
the second arm of the conditional is:
find_first_bit(addr,size)
(this is the "function" version of find_first_bit, not the macro that's
being defined. The naming here is unfortunately confusing).
Thus, roughly speaking, when the type of "size" is smaller than a long,
the macro's return type evaluates to unsigned long. If "size" is larger
than a long, the macro's return type evaluates to signed long.
By making the return type of __scanbit() an unsigned long, both arms of
the conditional evaluate to the same result type.
> It's on my todo list for some time to special case
> f_f_b() and friends for smaller arguments. Would
> that eliminate this construct?
Well, I can only assume what you mean by this, but I think that would
address the problem.
My real interest here is to eliminate a whole lot of compiler noise when
I enable -Wsign-compare for certain parts of the kernel.
[-- Attachment #2: chuck.lever.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 290 bytes --]
begin:vcard
fn:Chuck Lever
n:Lever;Chuck
org:Oracle Corporation;Corporate Architecture: Linux Projects Group
adr:;;1015 Granger Avenue;Ann Arbor;MI;48104;USA
title:Principal Member of Staff
tel;work:+1 248 614 5091
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://oss.oracle.com/~cel
version:2.1
end:vcard
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-15 22:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-15 21:02 [PATCH] Fix the sign of the result of a conditional expression Chuck Lever
2007-08-15 21:02 ` [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h Chuck Lever
2007-08-15 22:23 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-15 22:42 ` Chuck Lever [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46C38156.8060502@oracle.com \
--to=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox