On 14-08-11 02:13 PM, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 14-08-11 10:15 AM, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at >> 4:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> commit 177982e933ed6f2ab96163e14f4267f8abe89efd >>> >>> Seriously though, my commit does not change much, both FT_MSB and >>> ft_highpow2 used to return nonsense on zero input even before this >>> commit. I think I am going to apply some patches to protect against >>> reaching this code with zero argument, but I am not willing to change >>> FT_MSB itself. >> >> Non-sense is not the same as undefined. FT_MSB used to return 0 for 0. Now >> it's undefined. See below. > > Ok. I still do not think that we should fix the macro, because there > is no good value to return. Returning zero for zero is bad too. One > should not call MSB or the builtins with zero argument, just like one > should not divide by zero. So I'll try to apply fix the callers.
It's sometimes more convenient to have such defined behaviors as returning 0 for 0 in MSB as it makes caller code both cleaner and safer, like what was there before. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
