On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:14:01AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2019-03-06 at 16:44 +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 02:37:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h > > > index 40b48e2133cb..a47fb6046c0a 100644 > > > +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h > > > @@ -227,10 +227,10 @@ > > > typeof(d) _d = d; \ > > > u64 _a_full = _a; \ > > > unsigned int _to_shift = \ > > > - _s >= 0 && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0; \ > > > + (_s == 0 || _s > 0) && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0; \ > > > > I think this is just trading a tautological compare gcc happens to > > know about today (_s >= 0) with one it currently doesn't (_s == 0 || > > _s > 0) > > Since it is uncommon to write (_s >= 0) as (_s == 0 || _s > 0) my hope is > that the gcc maintainers won't consider it interesting to make gcc report > a warning about the latter expression. Thanks Bart, Once they do such report, we will find a way to overcome it too. It is unlikely that it will happen in near future. Thanks > > Bart.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
