On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:05 AM Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Warner Losh wrote:
...
I found my test program.
But I think I understand the problem now.
mst
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:05 AM Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:31 AM Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > ...
> > I found my test program.
> >
> >
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:31 AM Andriy Gapon wrote:
...
I found my test program.
But I think I understand the problem now.
mstosbt(1000) is overflowing with my change
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:31 AM Andriy Gapon wrote:
As a side note, I wonder if those functions are ever used on negative
values,
given the type of the argument, and if anyone checked their correctness in
that
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:31 AM Andriy Gapon wrote:
On 19/11/2018 03:38, Warner Losh wrote:
I'll talk to Allan to see if he can test that. the bare 1 should be
handled
properly because of C's promotion rules. 1ull << 32 is an unsigned long
long.
W
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:31 AM Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 19/11/2018 03:38, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I'll talk to Allan to see if he can test that. the bare 1 should be
> handled
> > properly because of C's promotion rules. 1ull << 32 is an unsigned long
> long.
> > What I really wanted was "~(uint
On 19/11/2018 03:38, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'll talk to Allan to see if he can test that. the bare 1 should be handled
> properly because of C's promotion rules. 1ull << 32 is an unsigned long long.
> What I really wanted was "~(uint32_t)0" but that construct has bit me in the
> past.
I think that
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 6:04 PM Rodney W. Grimes <
free...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> > I don't see how this could possibly have changed things. The changes will
> > change the least significant bit by one for fractional results. I've
> looked
>
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> I don't see how this could possibly have changed things. The changes will
> change the least significant bit by one for fractional results. I've looked
> at all the functions that use it and get called by the mlx driver and have
> trouble seeing where
I don't see how this could possibly have changed things. The changes will
change the least significant bit by one for fractional results. I've looked
at all the functions that use it and get called by the mlx driver and have
trouble seeing where it could be relevant...
Can you do an experiment to
On 2018-11-15 11:02, Warner Losh wrote:
> Author: imp
> Date: Thu Nov 15 16:02:13 2018
> New Revision: 340450
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/340450
>
> Log:
> When converting ns,us,ms to sbt, return the ceil() of the result
> rather than the floor(). Returning the floor means
Author: imp
Date: Thu Nov 15 16:02:13 2018
New Revision: 340450
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/340450
Log:
When converting ns,us,ms to sbt, return the ceil() of the result
rather than the floor(). Returning the floor means that
sbttoX(Xtosbt(y)) != y for almost all values of
12 matches
Mail list logo
