Hi Johan, On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011, Johan Hedberg wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011, David Stockwell wrote: >> > A short cut: the output is a contiguous array of uint_8, so masking >> > with 0xFF should be unnecessary. Would this be required for non-x86 >> > (including x86_64) architectures? >> >> Firstly, please don't top-post on this mailing list. >> >> If you don't do "& 0xff" and the value you're trying to assign to cid[n] >> is greater than 0xff isn't the result of the integer overflow that >> follows essentially the same as if you had done "% (0xff + 1)" (which is >> not what you want in this case). > > Actually those two operations result in the same value (I even did a > quick test program for this). So you're right :) I thought the same as you when I saw this code, but after testing the same code was being generated too. If we had the following: #define BAAA 0x204050 uint8_t c[3]; c[1] = BAAA >> 16; Then it would give us "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow]" But with "uint32_t baaa = 0x204050" there's no such warning and the compiler does the right thing. Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
