Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 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
> > undefined.
> > 
> 
> 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 6.5.7.5 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: 6.2.6.2.2 says sign can be done with
> sign + magnitude, twos complement or ones' complement...

But -fno-strict-overflow mandates 2s complement for all such signed
issues.