On 01/10/2010 04:32 PM, Michael Buesch wrote: > 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. Yes, my fault. The specs are now corrected so that these statements are ((s8)((s[1] >> 8) & 0x3F) << 2) >> 2 I think that is right. Larry -- 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
