[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] nodemask_t x86_64 changes [5/7]
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:14:12 -0800, 
Paul Jackson <> wrote:
>Does your way work if NR_CPUS is less than BITS_PER_LONG?
>Won't gcc complain upon seeing something like, for say
>NR_CPUS = 4 on a 32 bit system:
> { [ 0 ... -1 ] = ~0UL, ~0UL << 28 }
>with the errors and warnings:
> error: empty index range in initializer
> warning: excess elements in struct initializer

I only did one case, to concentrate on the value for the last word. A
full implementation has to cater for NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG as well.

>and shouldn't the last word be inverted: ~(~0UL << NR_CPUS_UNDEF) ?

For big endian, ~0UL << NR_CPUS_UNDEF is right. For little endian, it
depends on how you represent an incomplete bit map. Is it represented
as a pure bit string, i.e. as if the arch were big endian? Or is it
represented as a mapping onto the bytes of the underlying long?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.064 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site