On Sunday 10 January 2010 23:13:20 Rafał Miłecki wrote: > + buf[0] += (s8)(((s[0] & 0x3F) << 2) >> 2); > + buf[1] += (s8)((((s[0] >> 8) & 0x3F) << 2) >> 2); > + buf[2] += (s8)(((s[1] & 0x3F) << 2) >> 2); > + buf[3] += (s8)((((s[1] >> 8) & 0x3F) << 2) >> 2); I suggest buf[3] += (s8)((((s[1] >> 8) & 0x3F) << 2) >> 2) << 2) >> 2) << 2) >> 2) << 2) >> 2) << 2) >> 2) << 2) >> 2) << 2) >> 2) ;) No, seriously, why shift left and then shift right? Is this a translation error? I _guess_ it's some mistranslation of the sign extension going on. Or alternatively a compiler going insane on sign extension. The question is: Do we want these integers to be signextended or not? What we currently do is this: buf[3] += (s8)((s[1] >> 8) & 0x3F); which will always result in a positive 8bit integer, as far as I can see. Which smells fishy. -- 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
