| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] linux/x86: convert 'cpu' (and a few other)variab
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] linux/x86: convert 'cpu' (and a
few other)variables to unsigned"):
> When signed int is used as array index or in pointer arithmetic, the
> compiler has to insert an explicit, unconditional sign extension
> operation, whereas in many cases zero extension is implicit by
> preceding operations or can be done with a 32-bit move (which
> doesn't require a REX prefix and thus results in [statisitically]
> half a byte shorter instructions).
Oh dear. That really is very unfortunate.
> >Normally it's IMO best practice to avoid `unsigned' other than for
> >bitfields, clock arithmetic, and the like, because the behaviour of
> >unsigned in the presence of subtraction and comparision is often
> >surprising.
>
> I would disagree here, but it's certainly a personal thing what's
> considered surprising.
Indeed.
> Regardless of this personal aspect, the x86 Linux maintainers are
> actively doing the same thing (or are respectively asking for it to
> be done).
I suppose so.
I'm just not looking forward to all of the bugs of the form
if (cpus-1 < some_number_of_cpus) ...
and the like.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home