linux-kernel - Re: The type of bitops

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 07 May 2013 16:18:53 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: The type of bitops

On 05/07/2013 04:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> The one and only time I tried to use this, I thought this was odd.  Long
> has a different size on 32 vs 64 bit architectures, and bit ops seem
> like they'd want to be the same size everywhere so you can allocate the
> appropriate number of bits.  (Also, if you only want 32 bits, you have
> to do some evil cheating, and I don't trust casting int* to long* on
> big-endian architectures.)
> 
> Would offering a u32* option make sense?
> 

Honestly, the only thing that makes sense on bigendian architectures is
either byte-by-byte elements or counting bit numbers from the MSB, but
that is serious water under the bridge at this point...

	-hpa


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/