On 24.02.2026 11:12, Edwin Torok wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2026, at 15:42, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 23.02.2026 11:04, Edwin Török wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
>>> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
>>> @@ -1161,7 +1161,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>     instr[0] = 0x4d; instr[1] = 0x0f; instr[2] = 0xbb; instr[3] = 0x03;
>>>     regs.eflags = EFLAGS_ALWAYS_SET;
>>>     regs.rip    = (unsigned long)&instr[0];
>>> -    regs.r8     = (-1L << 40) + 1;
>>> +    regs.r8     = (~0ULL << 40) + 1;
>>
>> While -1 vs ~0 doesn't make a big difference, I think we want to stick to
>> "register size" here, and hence have only UL as the suffix. Then (happy to
>> adjust while committing):
>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
> 
> That is what I tried initially, but I got an error that the shift exceeds the 
> width of the type in (0UL << 40).
> (I think the failure was with -m32 in the CI, but can’t find it now)

But this code has "#ifdef __x86_64__" around it.

Jan

Reply via email to