Upon review, using unsigned makes a lot of sense, so I'll start the adjustment from apr_int32_t and simple ints to apr_uint32_t.
On Nov 25, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As Jeff said in the other thread, I think the test here should be : >>>> if (prev_idlers <= 1) >>>> that's because dec32 was returning the new value while add32 now returns >>>> the old one (fetch_and_sub vs sub_and_fetch). >>>> >>> >>> We aren't being consistent.. see below: >>> >>>> +static const apr_uint32_t zero_pt = ((apr_uint32_t)1 << 31); >>> >>> Hmmmm... for a 32bit int, shouldn't that be << 29 ?? >>> >>> I don't see, why 29? >>> Suppose idlers is 0: idlers - zero_pt == 0 - 2^31 == INT32_MIN; >>> and when idlers is 2^32-1: (2^32-1) - 2^31 == INT32_MAX. >>> Is there a need for more positives than negatives? >> >> All we are doing is trying to create a new offset... >> something between 0..INT32_MAX. Halfway is likely best, >> but we are talking scales here that it makes no real >> diff. >> >> In any case, ((apr_uint32_t)1 << 31) is wrong. >> Using <<30 would result in 1073741824 which is >> what we would want, if we want midway. > > > OOoooooooo. I see. You also changed idlers as well. Sometimes > it's extremely hard to make sense of the patches.
