[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1264601569.10795.131.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:12:49 +0100
From: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
To: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bug list: assigning negative values to unsigned variables
On Mit, 2010-01-27 at 13:30 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > On Mit, 2010-01-27 at 11:57 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fixing the places which assign negative values to unsigned variables is a good janitor task.
> > >
> > > I had the impression that assignment to -1 was done sometimes as a
> > > portable way to initialize the variable to 0xffff (for any number of f's).
Hmm, perhaps some experienced language lawyer can comment on the
"portable".
> > > So perhaps it is not so trivial to fix.
> > Any particular reason that ~0U, ~0UL, and ~0ULL shouldn't do the same
> > (without relying on conversion from signed to unsigned)?
>
> Then the constant specifies the type?
Yes. And it is necessary as "~0U" assigned to a "unsigned long long int"
won't give "~0ULL".
Otherwise "0" would be a signed int and from then on (starting with
"~0") we are in the C hell of type promotion/conversion from signed to
unsigned and/or back - at least in theory.
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists