On Friday 14 August 2009 23:35:29 Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 23:04 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Michael Buesch<mb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Friday 14 August 2009 22:52:13 Pavel Roskin wrote: > > >> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 22:15 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > >> > > >> > > - b43_phy_mask(dev, 0x048A, (u16)~0x8000); > > >> > > + b43_phy_mask(dev, 0x048A, (u16)(~0x8000 & 0xFFFF)); > > >> > > > > > > >> I would just use 0x7fff here. > > > > > > That does not work if 0x8000 is a #defined bit. > > > > What about ~((u16)0x8000)? > > phy_g.c:974: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned > type > > > (Or maybe ~(u16)0x8000 is enough, without > > the extra parentheses.) > > Same thing. Sparse complains whether the cast is explicit or implicit. > I still do not understand why it does complain about an _explicit_ truncation. That's simply stupid. If I program an explicit truncation I _do_ mean to truncate the value. -- Greetings, Michael. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
