> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:36:02 +0200 > From: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]> > > At Fri, 8 Oct 2010 20:48:10 +0200 (CEST), > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > From: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]> > > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:22:29 +0200 > > > > Sorry, but it isn't obvious to me what issue this fixes. > > In C, "1" is an integer, not an unsigned long. > Thus (1 << 33) doesn't give you the 33th bit shift, but it's undefined.
But if you'd actually use 33 (or event 32) as an offset, things wouldn't work on a 32-bit platform would they? Anyway, > If any, this must be (1UL << 32). This is the idiom that is much more common. I probably wouldn't have questioned things if you'd written it like that. I recommend you to stick to this version. > Also, it'd be better if such a test macro returns 1 instead of a > random non-zero value. So does my patch. In C this doesn't matter. > (Yeah, I know the changelogs are missing in most of patches; > as mentioned, it's just flushing of initial patches ;) > I'll rewrite and resubmit after reviews.) Well, it doesn't help your reviewers does it? _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
