lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/10] x86, asm: use bool for bitops and other assembly outputs

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On 06/08/16 01:33, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Note that this particular build error was introduced by b0bdba9825fe, a later
> > patch in this series - but in generaly I'm uneasy about allowing function
> > signatures diverge between architectures.
> >
>
> For the bitops, they already do: PowerPC, for example, have "unsigned
> long" in places where x86 has "int". This is obviously undesirable, but
> apparently we have not found it enough of a problem to deal with.
>
> One could easily argue the ppc definition is the better one; I was myself
> considering promoting the x86 side to "long" to handle enormous bitmaps. At the
> same time, it is hard to avoid the fact that ppc has unsigned bitops operations
> and x86 has signed ones when they are both native instructions.

That's a divergence with an underlying reason - but not harmonizing the return
code is an unforced error AFAICS and can be fixed.

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-08 11:21    [W:0.072 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site