On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That's what I meant. Actually, I think it's ULL. Regardless, I think >> the compiler will see the "1000000000 ... * 1000" and just combine >> them together. You're not actually outsmarting the compiler. > > The compiler will do no such thing. That's a valid transformation when > doing pure math, but not when working with integers. I ran some tests, and it appears you're right. I doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but whatever. However, "(1000000000 / pixclock) * 1000" produces a result that's less accurate than "1000000000000ULL / pixclock". Unfortunately, that math caused a linker problem with __udivdi3 when I tried it, so maybe you can use do_div() instead? >> err = -1; >> >> because he wanted it to be the largest possible integer. > > -1 is not the largest possible integer. LONG_MAX, perhaps? What, you don't like implicit casting of -1 to an unsigned? :-) Since err is a long integer, LONG_MAX is the better choice. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
