|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel

Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel

Posted Aug 19, 2012 17:00 UTC (Sun) by baldrick (subscriber, #4123)
In reply to: Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel by PaulMcKenney
Parent article: Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel

By "signed" I meant "signed integer type of the same size" and by "unsigned" I meant "unsigned integer type of the same size". The "same size" means: the same number of bits as the original integer type, so in the case of example 2 this means "signed long long" and "unsigned long long". Sorry for not being clear.

to post comments

Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel

Posted Aug 20, 2012 0:44 UTC (Mon) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624) [Link]

No problem!

I must admit that it would be nice if "(signed typeof(a))" and (unsigned typeof(b))" flipped the signedness of "a" and "b", but my version of gcc really doesn't like either variant. ;-)


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds