lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 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 6.5.7.5 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: 6.2.6.2.2 says sign can be done with
> sign + magnitude, twos complement or ones' complement...

But -fno-strict-overflow mandates 2s complement for all such signed
issues.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-08 18:34    [W:0.110 / U:38.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site