[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:22:50 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
james.t.kukunas@...el.com, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86, bitops: Change bitops to be native operand
size
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 18:06 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 02:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 14:10 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Yes, on the generic it is int.
> >> The problem is in part that some architectures have bitop
> >> instructions with specific behavior.
> > I think that all bitop indices should be changed
> > to unsigned (int or long, probably long) for all
> > arches.
> > Is there any impediment to that?
> It is at the very best misleading. On x86 bit indicies will be signed
> no matter what the data type says,
?
> and having an unsigned data type
> being interpreted as signed seems like really dangerous.
> On the other hand, for the generic implementation unsigned long makes sense.
> We might need a bitindex_t or something like that for it to be clean.
Is there really any reason to introduce bitindex_t?
Perhaps the current x86 bitops asm code is being conflated
with the ideal implementation?
--
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