Re: [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> The return type of __scanbit() doesn't match the return type of
> find_{first,next}_bit().  Thus when you construct something like
> this:
> 
>    boolean ? __scanbit() : find_first_bit()

Why would you want to write this?  What is boolean?
Do they have different arguments?

It's on my todo list for some time to special case
f_f_b() and friends for smaller arguments. Would
that eliminate this construct?

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h
    • From: Chuck Lever <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Fix the sign of the result of a conditional expression
    • From: Chuck Lever <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h
    • From: Chuck Lever <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/25][V3] irq_flags / halt routines
• Next by Date: [PATCH take2] Use ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK if poll() is interrupted by a signal
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Eliminate result signage problem in asm-x86_64/bitops.h
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]