On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:55:29AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Andre Muezerie [mailto:andre...@linux.microsoft.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2025 22.37 > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 04:12:49PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 05:53:57PM -0800, Andre Muezerie wrote: > > > > MSVC issues the warnings below: > > > > > > > > 1) ../lib/hash/rte_thash_gf2_poly_math.c(128): warning C4334: '<<': > > > > result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 bits > > > > (was 64-bit shift intended?) > > > > > > > > The code would be better off by using 64 bit numbers to begin with. > > > > That eliminates the need for a conversion to 64 bits later. > > > > > > > > 2) ../lib/hash/rte_thash.c(568): warning C4334: '<<': > > > > result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 bits > > > > (was 64-bit shift intended?) > > > > > > > > 1ULL should be used as the result of the bit shift gets multiplied > > > > by sizeof(uint32_t). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andre Muezerie <andre...@linux.microsoft.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > > > > > > > lib/hash/rte_thash.c | 2 +- > > > > lib/hash/rte_thash_gf2_poly_math.c | 6 +++--- > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/hash/rte_thash.c b/lib/hash/rte_thash.c > > > > index fa78787143..f076311b57 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/hash/rte_thash.c > > > > +++ b/lib/hash/rte_thash.c > > > > @@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ rte_thash_add_helper(struct rte_thash_ctx *ctx, > > const char *name, uint32_t len, > > > > offset; > > > > > > > > ent = rte_zmalloc(NULL, sizeof(struct rte_thash_subtuple_helper) > > + > > > > - sizeof(uint32_t) * (1 << ctx->reta_sz_log), > > > > + sizeof(uint32_t) * (1ULL << ctx->reta_sz_log), > > > > RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE); > > > > > > Is there a reason not to use RTE_BIT64 here too? > > > > Here we are calculating the size to be passed to the second argument of > > rte_zmalloc, which is of type size_t. size_t is implementation > > dependent, typically 4 bytes on 32-bit systems and 8 bytes on 64-bit > > systems, so using 1ULL seems more appropriate. > > 1ULL makes it 8 byte on 32-bit systems too. Did you mean 1UL? > > How about reducing the formula to directly shift the sizeof() instead, i.e.: > sizeof(uint32_t) << ctx->reta_sz_log,
Shifting the sizeof() directly is better indeed. Let me know how we should proceed. Do you want me to send out a new series incorporating this suggestion?
