Re: [PATCH jiffies] Avoid undefined behavior from signed overflow

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Mon Jul 29 2013 - 10:28:37 EST

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:01:03AM +1000, Kevin Easton wrote:
> Quoting "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:30:35PM +1000, caf@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>Quoting "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>
> ...
> >>>
> >>>Note that the C standard considers the cast from signed to
> >>>unsigned to be implementation-defined, see
> ...
> >>
> >>Don't worry, the case from signed to unsigned is actually well-defined -
> >>the relevant part is (in C99):
> >>
> >>>Otherwise, if the new type is unsigned, the value is converted by
> >>>repeatedly adding or subtracting one more than the maximum value that
> >>>can be represented in the new type until the value is in the range of
> >>>the new type.
> >
> >Yep, but we are going in the other direction, from unsigned to signed.
> Ahh, there's an error in the commit message (it says signed to unsigned).

Good catch, fixed!

Thanx, Paul

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at