Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance
From: Valentin Schneider
Date: Tue Oct 08 2019 - 10:34:08 EST
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
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 18.104.22.168 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: 22.214.171.124.2 says sign can be done with
sign + magnitude, twos complement or ones' complement...
I suppose when you really just want a division you should ask for division
semantics - i.e. use '/'. I'd expect compilers to be smart enough to turn
that into a shift if a power of 2 is involved, and to do something else
if negative values can be involved.