On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:13:54PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 15:05 +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote: > > > > Doug, > > > > May I ask you to amend this patch in a way which would > > > > just stop this monument of programming stupidity from > > > > prolonging into the future, while of course recognizing > > > > the impossibility of erasing it from the past? > > > > Exchanging the %u with %d would help me regaining > > > > some self-confidence ;) > > > > > > A > > > q?a:b > > > > > > Expression has only a single type. There are some tricky rules on > > > this, but since gcc does not complain on the %u it means > > > 'q?(u32):(int)' is a (u32) and the -1 is implicitly casted. > > > > > > The better thing to write would have been U32_MAX instead of -1 > > > > > > > What I wanted to have though is an easy to spot invalid number > > for the QP. This is why I wanted to have it a negative number > > on the screen, which is obviously not nicely achievable. So, > > yeah, U32_MAX is a better idea. It will not very often be a > > valid QP ID... > > Given that this patch was still the top of my tree, I fixed this up. > But, I think U32_MAX is wrong. It should be UINT_MAX (which is what I > used). Otherwise it will give errors on s390 where an int is 31 bits > (and anywhere else that might have a non-32 bit int). qp_id returns u32 and the types of both sides of the : should be identical A non-32 bit int does not exist in Linux, everything would break. Jason
