On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:18:14 +0100
Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> > > index bb3ca9a5d731..2eba9575828e 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> > > @@ -485,11 +485,13 @@ static bool popcount_eq(__uint128_t a, __uint128_t b)
> > >
> > > static __uint128_t rotate(int size, __uint128_t val, int amount)
> > > {
> > > - unsigned int bits = size * 8;
> > > + unsigned int left, right, bits = size * 8;
> > >
> >
> > ...why not just:
> >
> > if (!amount)
> > return val;
> >
> > ?
>
> That works if you move it one statement down (128 would also trigger UB).
oops, yes it has to be after
> % 128 does the trick, is branchless and there is a bit of a symmetry going
> on between right and left.
> But I can use an early return if you want.
I think it's more readable, and furthermore...
>
> >
> > > - amount = (amount + bits) % bits;
> > > + right = (amount + bits) % bits;
> > > + /* % 128 prevents left shift UB if size == 16 && right == 0 */
> > > + left = (bits - right) % 128;
> > > val = cut_to_size(size, val);
> > > - return (val << (bits - amount)) | (val >> amount);
...this is a more idiomatic syntax for a rotate operation
> > > + return (val << left) | (val >> right);
> > > }
> > >
> > > const unsigned int max_block = 16;
> > >
> > > base-commit: 305230142ae0637213bf6e04f6d9f10bbcb74af8
> >
>
