[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160608090111.GA11390@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:01:12 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] x86, asm: use bool for bitops and other assembly
outputs
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 06/08/16 01:33, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Note that this particular build error was introduced by b0bdba9825fe, a later
> > patch in this series - but in generaly I'm uneasy about allowing function
> > signatures diverge between architectures.
> >
>
> For the bitops, they already do: PowerPC, for example, have "unsigned
> long" in places where x86 has "int". This is obviously undesirable, but
> apparently we have not found it enough of a problem to deal with.
>
> One could easily argue the ppc definition is the better one; I was myself
> considering promoting the x86 side to "long" to handle enormous bitmaps. At the
> same time, it is hard to avoid the fact that ppc has unsigned bitops operations
> and x86 has signed ones when they are both native instructions.
That's a divergence with an underlying reason - but not harmonizing the return
code is an unforced error AFAICS and can be fixed.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists