>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:04:16AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > Yes, intentional and consistent with previous code.
> > The usage of unsigned for BYTESWAP avoid sign extension during arithmetic.
>
> If BYTESWAP has such issues (and I don't think it does), then this should be
> fixed.
> ack on being consistent with what was done before.
>
> Christophe
>
Looking at macro sources do not seem to have such issue.
OT: Looking at macro sources why don't we use asm/swab.h or byteswap.h on Linux?
They provide support for more architectures. Or something like
--- a/spice/macros.h
+++ b/spice/macros.h
@@ -248,7 +248,11 @@
/* Arch specific stuff for speed
*/
-#if defined (__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ >= 2) && defined (__OPTIMIZE__)
+#if defined (__GNUC__) && ((__GNUC__ > 4) || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3))
+# define SPICE_BYTESWAP16(val) __builtin_bswap16(val)
+# define SPICE_BYTESWAP32(val) __builtin_bswap32(val)
+# define SPICE_BYTESWAP64(val) __builtin_bswap64(val)
+#elif defined (__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ >= 2) && defined (__OPTIMIZE__)
# if defined (__i386__)
# define SPICE_BYTESWAP16_IA32(val) \
(__extension__ \
Frediano
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel