On 6/22/2021 2:49 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 2021-06-22 8:08 a.m., Lazar, Lijo wrote:
[Public]
AFAIK, that expression is legal (some code analyzer may warn on value of
4*max_wgp_per_sh); similar kind is used in rotate shift operations.
The default type for constants in C is int, so 0xffffffff is a 32-bit signed
integer.
Probably not as per section 6.4.4.
"The type of an integer constant is the first of the corresponding list
in which its value can be represented."
It is a hexadecimal constant and the first to fit this value is unsigned
int. Regardless, adding u suffix will avoid any ambiguity.
Thanks,
Lijo
The C99 specification lists this under J.2 Undefined behavior:
— An expression having signed promoted type is left-shifted and either the
value of the
expression is negative or the result of shifting would be not be
representable in the
promoted type (6.5.7).
So it would be safer to make it unsigned: 0xffffffffu (or just ~0u).
-----Original Message-----
From: Quan, Evan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 7:56 AM
To: Lazar, Lijo <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Deucher, Alexander <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 1/7] drm/amdgpu: correct tcp harvest setting
[AMD Official Use Only]
Thanks Lijo.
However, I'm not quite sure whether " 0xffffffff << (4 * max_wgp_per_sh);" is a
valid expression since it kind of triggers some overflow.
Can that work for non-x86 platform or even work reliably for x86 platform?
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
