[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YwT+5GGCOKoTjfQZ@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:23:00 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Christophe Jaillet <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/asm/bitops: __ffs,ffz: use __builtin_ctzl to
evaluate constant expressions
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 08:44:38PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> __ffs(x) is equivalent to (unsigned long)__builtin_ctzl(x)
Are you sure about this?
My gcc documentation says:
"Built-in Function: int __builtin_ctz (unsigned int x)
Returns the number of trailing 0-bits in x, starting at the least significant bit position. If x is 0, the result is undefined."
Note the undefined part.
Also,
__builtin_ctzl(0): 0x40
ffs(0): 0x0
I'm using the kernel ffs() version in a small program which is basically
a wrapper around BSF.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists