On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:01:51PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 16:38 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > enum {
> > - MLX4_WQE_BIND_TYPE_2 = (1<<31),
> > + MLX4_WQE_BIND_TYPE_2 = (1UL<<31),
> > MLX4_WQE_BIND_ZERO_BASED = (1<<30),
> > };
>
> Hello Jason,
>
> A quote from the C11 standard:
>
> "The expression that defines the value of an enumeration constant shall be an
> integer constant expression that has a value representable as an int. [ ... ]
> Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or
> an unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined but
> shall be capable of representing the values of all the members of the
> enumeration."
>
> Does that mean that this change relies on extensions to the C standard?
Yes, this relies on a common compiler extension to promote the type of
enum constants beyond int. AFAIK all compilers have done this forever,
kinda bonkers it isn't in C11, IMHO.
As I understand it, the current code is also non-conforming as (1<<31)
is apparently undefined behavior, and at least gcc throws a warning
for it in -Wpedantic mode.
I did a patch that will make our public headers mostly strictly
conforming to C11 with -Wpedantic set, which I've been wondering if it
is worth sending..
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
