[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance
On 08/10/2019 15:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> Yeah, right shift on signed negative values are implementation defined.
> Seriously? Even under -fno-strict-overflow? There is a perfectly
> sensible operation for signed shift right, this stuff should not be
> undefined.

Mmm good point. I didn't see anything relevant in the description of that
flag. All my copy of the C99 standard (draft) says at is:

The result of E1 >> E2 [...] If E1 has a signed type and a negative value,
the resulting value is implementation-defined.

Arithmetic shift would make sense, but I think this stems from twos'
complement not being imposed: says sign can be done with
sign + magnitude, twos complement or ones' complement...

I suppose when you really just want a division you should ask for division
semantics - i.e. use '/'. I'd expect compilers to be smart enough to turn
that into a shift if a power of 2 is involved, and to do something else
if negative values can be involved.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-08 16:34    [W:0.092 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site