>> Even if next_port is initialized to a negative value by get_random_bytes, I >> would expect next_port to be set to a positive value between >> local_port_range[0] >> and local_port_range[1] by the next statement. I'm not seeing the error my >> my >> math/logic here. > >My my English needs help, but here's the definitions for '%' in C89 and >C99 according to Wikipedia: > >C89 - sign of result is not defined >C99 - result has same sign as dividend > >Could the compiler be causing the difference on this? > >- Sean > Possible. I was using the OFED build environment in sles10sp1, and without the patch next_port sometimes gets a negative value. This might be the reason it was difficult to reproduce this. Anyway, in order to cover all possibilities (such as C99), I think that next_port should be unsigned.
--Yossi _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
