Re: [tip:x86/mce] x86/bitops: Move BIT_64() for a wider use

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:31 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> And it should return UL for shift values < 32 and ULL otherwise.
>>
>
> Why do you want that behavior?  That seems bizarre...

We *have* to have that behavior.

A 64-bit value on a 32-bit architecture has fundamentally different
semantics than a 32-bit one.

It expands arithmetic, but it has other semantic differences too.
Think "printf()" etc. We don't want to force people to do 64-bit
arithmetic on x86-32 when they are working with BIT(0), for chrissake!

So if people make BIT(0) be a 64-bit value on a 32-bit architecture,
I'm going to run around naked with a chainsaw, and call people morons.
That's just not acceptable.

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