> *wide = new + ((unsigned long) (new < *wide) << 16 << 16);
> The comment says "Treating the comparison as a 1 and shifting it > avoids a conditional branch". Only on architectures with conditional moves - and, on those, the version using ? : is likely to compile down to a conditional move anyway. I think that comment should be fixed. > I guess the sizeof comparison would not be necessary since the > condition should never meet with 64-bit longs. Unless it's in a code fragment that's used only on machines with <64-bit longs, it will; X runs on systems with 64-bit longs. > And if it does, something is wrong anyway (from my understanding). > After all this is the trigger of the bug. Does anyone know whether the bug triggers on systems with 64-bit longs? /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
