[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191008163357.GF2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 18:33:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
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 Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 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...
But -fno-strict-overflow mandates 2s complement for all such signed
issues.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists