On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0000, David Howells said: > Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > > > Umm.. it's not clear to *me* that it's intended to be a negative 16 bit? Or > > am I just missing context not present in the patch? > > > > (I have no idea if the rest of the patch is OK or not, but that comment > > didn't give me warm fuzzies....) > The patch permits a 64-bit hosted assembler to represent a large 32-bit > unsigned integer (such as 0xfffffff1) as a negative integer where the > instruction being assembled has a signed immediate operand. Oh, I understood the gist of the patch. My question was specifically regarding the comment saying: "0xffffe000 is clearly intended to be a negative 16-bit value" I'd guess it was a negative *32* bit value, unless there's context constraining it to 16....
Attachment:
pgp6AS3tRP55q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
