On 09/14/2017 03:44 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/13/17 23:03, Eric Blake wrote:
>> When using bit-wise operations that exploit the power-of-two
>> nature of the second argument of ROUND_UP(), we still need to
>> ensure that the mask is as wide as the first argument (done
>> by using addition of
On 09/13/17 23:03, Eric Blake wrote:
> When using bit-wise operations that exploit the power-of-two
> nature of the second argument of ROUND_UP(), we still need to
> ensure that the mask is as wide as the first argument (done
> by using addition of 0 to force proper arithmetic promotion).
> Unpatch
On 13/09/2017 23:03, Eric Blake wrote:
> When using bit-wise operations that exploit the power-of-two
> nature of the second argument of ROUND_UP(), we still need to
> ensure that the mask is as wide as the first argument (done
> by using addition of 0 to force proper arithmetic promotion).
> Unpat
When using bit-wise operations that exploit the power-of-two
nature of the second argument of ROUND_UP(), we still need to
ensure that the mask is as wide as the first argument (done
by using addition of 0 to force proper arithmetic promotion).
Unpatched, ROUND_UP(2ULL*1024*1024*1024*1024, 512) pro
