On 27/11/2021 07:32, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 26.11.21 um 12:36 schrieb Philip Oakley: >> Visual Studio reports C4334 "was 64-bit shift intended" size mismatch >> warning because of size miss-match. >> >> Promote unity to the matching type to fit with the `&` operator. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> >> >> --- >> This is the same fix that René Scharfe provided in 42c456ff81 >> (mergesort: avoid left shift overflow, 2021-11-16) >> >> Use size_t to match n when building the bitmask for checking whether a >> rank is occupied, instead of the default signed int. > Fine with me -- it's just nicer to take the whole set. > > René Thanks, I'm happy either way if others feels it belongs better with your mergesort series. > >> --- >> mergesort.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/mergesort.c b/mergesort.c >> index 6216835566..bd9c6ef8ee 100644 >> --- a/mergesort.c >> +++ b/mergesort.c >> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ void *llist_mergesort(void *list, >> void *next = get_next_fn(list); >> if (next) >> set_next_fn(list, NULL); >> - for (i = 0; n & (1 << i); i++) >> + for (i = 0; n & ((size_t)1 << i); i++) >> list = llist_merge(ranks[i], list, get_next_fn, >> set_next_fn, compare_fn); >> n++; >> Philip
