Felipe Kellermann wrote:
> Thanks. I will look at the resulting assembly in the different toolchains
> and processos and systems and eventually discuss this subject with the GCC
> or binutils people.
I.e., suggesting that they standardize on a particular behavior for shifts
greater than the widt
On Sun, 28 May 2006 1:14pm -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
> Felipe Kellermann wrote:
>
> > This fixes the problem to me. Does anyone know why 0x << (32 - 0)
> > is resulting in 0x in mcode?
>
> To quote the ANSI C89 standard, section 3.3.7 "Bitwise Shift Operators":
>
> If the va
Felipe Kellermann wrote:
> This fixes the problem to me. Does anyone know why 0x << (32 - 0)
> is resulting in 0x in mcode?
To quote the ANSI C89 standard, section 3.3.7 "Bitwise Shift Operators":
If the value of the right operand is negative or is greater than or
equal to th
On Sun, 28 May 2006 2:19am -0300, Felipe Kellermann wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 12:26am -0300, Felipe Kellermann wrote:
>
> > I noticed 'net 0.0.0.0/0' filter compiles to a BPF code that differs from
> > the alternative 'net mask' filter. All the others net filters I tried
> > produced the s
On Sun, 28 May 2006 12:26am -0300, Felipe Kellermann wrote:
> I noticed 'net 0.0.0.0/0' filter compiles to a BPF code that differs from
> the alternative 'net mask' filter. All the others net filters I tried
> produced the same BPF code. Still haven't looked at the code -- is this
> resulting
I noticed 'net 0.0.0.0/0' filter compiles to a BPF code that differs from
the alternative 'net mask' filter. All the others net filters I tried
produced the same BPF code. Still haven't looked at the code -- is this
resulting code known/intentional? Using pcap 0.9.4,
src net 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.
