> Ok, I can't resist. Please keep in mind I don't know anything about
> the coding conventions for this project. But wouldn't it be better
> to adopt a convention that uses something like WORD16 and WORD32 for
> dealing with memory, since int, long, and short can all be compiler
> dependent?
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Phil Goembel wrote:
> Ok, I can't resist. Please keep in mind I don't know anything about
> the coding conventions for this project. But wouldn't it be better
> to adopt a convention that uses something like WORD16 and WORD32 for
> dealing with memory, since int, long, a
Greg Haerr wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 30, 1999 4:59 PM, David Murn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>wrote:
> : On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> :
> : > You mean
> : >
> : > unsigned long peekd(unsigned short *x)
> : > {
> : > return peekw(x)(peekw(x+1
On Monday, August 30, 1999 4:59 PM, David Murn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
:
: > You mean
: >
: > unsigned long peekd(unsigned short *x)
: > {
: > return peekw(x)(peekw(x+1)<<8);
: > }
:
: Shiftin
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> You mean
>
> unsigned long peekd(unsigned short *x)
> {
> return peekw(x)(peekw(x+1)<<8);
> }
Shifting by 8? 16 might work a tad better. Also the +1 makes me
suspicious. +sizeof(x) would be
Hi, I'd like to invite everyone to
http://memes.org
This is an online conferencing center, if you register for a user name and
password (it's free) you can come in and become a member of the Elks86
conference. The dialog is usually kept a little neater there and it is all
immediatly archived!
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I have NO idea what the code was even supposed to do, but
> > if it is supposed to do what I quessed it could do, then
> > isn't this better:
> >
> > unsigned long peekd(unsigned short *x)
> > {
> > return peekw(x)|(peekw(x[1])<<16);
> > }
>
> Yep.
Not
> I have NO idea what the code was even supposed to do, but
> if it is supposed to do what I quessed it could do, then
> isn't this better:
>
> unsigned long peekd(unsigned short *x)
> {
> return peekw(x)|(peekw(x[1])<<16);
> }
Yep.
> Pardon my dumbness if I completely missed the point.
I wa
> > What is needed is a similar function, perhaps peekd() which
> > would return a long. Then we could define a macro get_user_long()
Alan Cox wrote:
> You mean
>
> unsigned long peekd(unsigned short *x)
> {
> return peekw(x)(peekw(x+1)<<8)
> What is needed is a similar function, perhaps peekd() which
> would return a long. Then we could define a macro get_user_long()
You mean
unsigned long peekd(unsigned short *x)
{
return peekw(x)(peekw(x+1)<<8);
}
Blaz writes:
> Hmm, I thought that L in first line and (unsigned long) in second
> line sets the appropriate data width. I mean L is always used with
> long constants while (type) is used for variables.
Actually, I added the "L". It is not in the original code at
line 344 of fs/select.c.
But t
11 matches
Mail list logo
