On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:10:30AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > Spencer spotted something nasty in the round_up macro. We were
> > wondering why round_up() worked differently from ALIGN. The only real
> > difference between the two
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> Spencer spotted something nasty in the round_up macro. We were
> wondering why round_up() worked differently from ALIGN. The only real
> difference between the two patterns is overflow behaviour. And both
> version are buggy when
Spencer spotted something nasty in the round_up macro. We were
wondering why round_up() worked differently from ALIGN. The only real
difference between the two patterns is overflow behaviour. And both
version are buggy when used for signed integer types, round_up will
underflow on INT_MIN,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:10:30AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
Spencer spotted something nasty in the round_up macro. We were
wondering why round_up() worked differently from ALIGN. The only real
difference between the two patterns
Spencer spotted something nasty in the round_up macro. We were
wondering why round_up() worked differently from ALIGN. The only real
difference between the two patterns is overflow behaviour. And both
version are buggy when used for signed integer types, round_up will
underflow on INT_MIN,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
Spencer spotted something nasty in the round_up macro. We were
wondering why round_up() worked differently from ALIGN. The only real
difference between the two patterns is overflow behaviour. And both
version are buggy when used
6 matches
Mail list logo