[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b4e29e48-a97c-67e5-a284-6ddc13222c5b@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:34:04 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance
On 08/10/2019 15:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
>> Yeah, right shift on signed negative values are implementation defined.
>
> Seriously? Even under -fno-strict-overflow? There is a perfectly
> sensible operation for signed shift right, this stuff should not be
> undefined.
>
Mmm good point. I didn't see anything relevant in the description of that
flag. All my copy of the C99 standard (draft) says at 6.5.7.5 is:
"""
The result of E1 >> E2 [...] If E1 has a signed type and a negative value,
the resulting value is implementation-defined.
"""
Arithmetic shift would make sense, but I think this stems from twos'
complement not being imposed: 6.2.6.2.2 says sign can be done with
sign + magnitude, twos complement or ones' complement...
I suppose when you really just want a division you should ask for division
semantics - i.e. use '/'. I'd expect compilers to be smart enough to turn
that into a shift if a power of 2 is involved, and to do something else
if negative values can be involved.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists