Re: [openib-general] integer overflow
> Yes but we cast them to signed int here - no? That's true, I guess it is technically undefined. But time_after() is relying on the same thing working, so I would say we don't care. - R. ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] integer overflow
> Quoting Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: integer overflow
>
> >while ((int) priv->tx_tail - (int) priv->tx_head < 0) {
> >
> > seems to rely on integer overflow which seems to be
> > undefined behaviour.
>
> tx_tail and tx_head are unsigned, and overflow is defined for unsigned
> integers.
Yes but we cast them to signed int here - no?
--
MST
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] integer overflow
> while ((int) priv->tx_tail - (int) priv->tx_head < 0) {
>
> seems to rely on integer overflow which seems to be
> undefined behaviour.
tx_tail and tx_head are unsigned, and overflow is defined for unsigned
integers.
- R.
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
[openib-general] integer overflow
Roland, the following code in ipoib:
while ((int) priv->tx_tail - (int) priv->tx_head < 0) {
seems to rely on integer overflow which seems to be
undefined behaviour.
Should we care?
--
MST
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
