On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 05:13:52PM -0600, Tim Walberg wrote:
> In the interest of portability, I don't know if this is correct (I
> may be wrong, though...). While I've never worked on a system where
> the suggested macros wouldn't work, maybe there are machines out
> there (1's complement rather than 2's complement, or sign/magnitude)
> where these macros will give plain wrong answers. I'm not sure there's
> any portable way to write a macro that covers all possible cases.
> Maybe that's why they haven't been provided already...
one's complement machines would break in other places (have a look at
mm/page_alloc.c), and so would machines which break the 8 bits per
byte assumption. I don't think it'd be worth it to "fix" this code -
which machines actually out there still use one's complement ?
Philipp Rumpf
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST