On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:55:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.04.16 at 10:36, wrote:
> > On 11/03/16 16:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> In that case (with the new value being held in, or now in one case cast
> >> to, a 32-bit variable) there's no need to go
>>> On 21.04.16 at 10:36, wrote:
> On 11/03/16 16:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> In that case (with the new value being held in, or now in one case cast
>> to, a 32-bit variable) there's no need to go through the long mode part
>> of the checks.
>>
>> Primarily this was
On 11/03/16 16:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> In that case (with the new value being held in, or now in one case cast
> to, a 32-bit variable) there's no need to go through the long mode part
> of the checks.
>
> Primarily this was meant to hopefully address Coverity ID 1355278, but
> since the change
In that case (with the new value being held in, or now in one case cast
to, a 32-bit variable) there's no need to go through the long mode part
of the checks.
Primarily this was meant to hopefully address Coverity ID 1355278, but
since the change produces smaller code as well I think we should