>> - modify CHECK_AND_SET_VAL - comparison is done as signed, but assignments >> are unsigned. This is kind of confusing, but that's how it appears the >> macro is used. It might be clearer if instead of passing -1 into the >> macro, that a SET_VAL macro be used instead. > >What do you mean? Another macro?
yes -- instead of passing -1 into CHECK_AND_SET_VAL as the value to compare against, call a different macro that just sets the value, unless I'm misunderstanding why -1 is passed in. Then CHECK_AND_SET_VAL would do unsigned comparisons. I can submit a patch for this, but I wasn't completely sure of the intent of using -1 as the compare value. - Sean _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
