In addition shouldn't we use uintptr_t instead of the intptr_t to cope with
the MSB during the shifting operations?
George
On Feb 5, 2016 10:08 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet <
> gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > static inline opal_process_name_t ompi_proc_sentinel_to_name (intptr_t
> sentinel)
> > {
> > sentinel >>= 1;
> > sentinel &= 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF;
> > return *((opal_process_name_t *) &sentinel);
> > }
>
> I don't have much of an opinion on any of the other stuff here, but I note
> that this is unsafe. I know we don't really care about non-64 bit these
> days, but we shouldn't be knowingly breaking it. Instead of ANDing with a
> fixed constant, shouldn't it be something like:
>
> intptr_t mask = ~1 >> 1;
> sentinel &= mask;
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquy...@cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/02/18557.php
>
