On 2013-02-12 04:33, Jay Foad wrote:
The comment's wrong, isn't it? The reason we're not using
HOST_LONG_BITS is because it's the wrong thing, not because of any
include loops.
Err, well, yes. But there *was* an include loop when we were using that
symbol. Feel free to push a comment fix thr
Am 12.02.2013 13:33, schrieb Jay Foad:
>> +#if ULONG_MAX == UINT32_MAX
>> +return le_bswap(v, 32);
>> +#elif ULONG_MAX == UINT64_MAX
>> +return le_bswap(v, 64);
>> +#else
>> +# error Unknown sizeof long
>> +#endif
>
> Is there any reason this can't be simplified to something like:
>
>
> @@ -458,7 +458,15 @@ static inline void cpu_to_32wu(uint32_t *p, uint32_t v)
>
> static inline unsigned long leul_to_cpu(unsigned long v)
> {
> -return le_bswap(v, HOST_LONG_BITS);
> +/* In order to break an include loop between here and
> + qemu-common.h, don't rely on HOST_LONG_
Applied. Thanks.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Am 01.02.2013 23:26, schrieb Richard Henderson:
> The misnamed HOST_LONG_BITS is really HOST_POINTER_BITS. Here we're
> explicitly using an unsigned long, rather than uintptr_t, so it is
> more correct to select the swap size via ULONG_MAX.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
Acked-by: Andreas
The misnamed HOST_LONG_BITS is really HOST_POINTER_BITS. Here we're
explicitly using an unsigned long, rather than uintptr_t, so it is
more correct to select the swap size via ULONG_MAX.
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
---
include/qemu/bswap.h | 12 ++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+
