> On Monday 01 September 2003 18:30, Luca Berra wrote: > > the issue is that fls(x) function in 2.6 use int, same as the fls(x) in > > the swsusp patches, while fls(x) in dm patches use unsigned int. > > so which would the correct implementation of fls be? > > The declaration in the standard library is correct by definition, and mine > was > incorrect, regardless of which is more sensible. > > However, since the automatic type conversion (which generates no code) > works > fine, there is no reason not to use the more descriptive 'unsigned' > declaration for variables. > > Regards, > > Daniel Thanks for the clarification Regards, Svetoslav -- COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test -------------------------------------------------- 1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger! 2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger! 3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. e-Post
