On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 17:00, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> This was an issue with gcc 2.96 on a 64-way IA64 box. I don't have
> access to one at the moment, but as I remember, without the 2.4 changes:
>
> - ((p)->cpus_runnable & (p)->cpus_allowed & (1 << cpu))
> + ((p)->cpus_runnable & (p)->cpus_allowed & (1UL << cpu))
>
> nothing would get scheduled on CPUs 32-63. I guess those changes
> aren't controversial, though.
Is this a C quirk or a compiler bug ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 22:00:08 EST