Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Patch\]\s+xfs

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Patch\]\s+xfs_lowbit64\s+broken\s+on\s+ia32\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:16:20 +1100; The recent change to the internals of xfs_lowbit64 broke it on ia32 - the code treats the 64bit value as an unsigned long which is only 32 bits on ia32 and hence throws away the high 32 bits. 64 bit; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00013.html (8,871 bytes)
2. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:11:36 +1100; David Chinner wrote: The recent change to the internals of xfs_lowbit64 broke it on ia32 - the code treats the 64bit value as an unsigned long which is only 32 bits on ia32 and hence throws away the; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00021.html (10,219 bytes)
3. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:21:28 +1100; Because I thought that taking the address of a function parameter was a big no-no because the result is undefined (i.e. platform and compiler dependent)? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engin; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00023.html (10,355 bytes)
4. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:37:01 +1100; David Chinner wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:11:36PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: David Chinner wrote: The recent change to the internals of xfs_lowbit64 broke it on ia32 - the code treats the 64; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00024.html (10,811 bytes)
5. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:44:21 +1100; Whatever. They are both the same. xfs/xfs_types.h <global> 41 typedef unsigned long long int __uint64_t; Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00025.html (11,335 bytes)
6. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:35:52 +1100; David Chinner wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:37:01PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: David Chinner wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:11:36PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: David Chinner wrote: The re; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00028.html (11,701 bytes)
7. RE: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 04:14:02 -0800; I've never heard of this, and it's incorrect--at least with respect to standard C. (But that's not to say in practice some compiler does it wrong.) Unless it's a real (details known) problem you shou; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00032.html (9,984 bytes)
8. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:04:26 +1100; Alex Elder wrote: David Chinner wrote: . . . Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h == -- 2.6.x-xfs-new.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h 2007-11-02 13:44:45.000000000 +1100 +++ 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h 200; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00034.html (10,858 bytes)
9. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:55:53 +1100; It caused me pain about 10 years ago with gcc 2.? and m68k platform, so I've just avoided doing it ever since. IMO, taking the address of a function parameter is also bad coding practice because it u; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00035.html (10,838 bytes)
10. RE: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:15:41 -0800; Yeah there's lots of fancy new stuff in C99. Like variable length arrays, language-supported complex (sqrt(-1)) data types, C++ style initializations (mid-functions). And you can declare your loop in; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00036.html (9,552 bytes)
11. RE: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:22:04 -0800; I figured an experience like this was behind it. I'm undecided. I agree there's something aesthetically wrong about it. Technically I'm not so sure. Maybe a longjmp() can lead bad things happening wh; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00037.html (11,230 bytes)
12. [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:16:20 +1100; The recent change to the internals of xfs_lowbit64 broke it on ia32 - the code treats the 64bit value as an unsigned long which is only 32 bits on ia32 and hence throws away the high 32 bits. 64 bit; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00245.html (8,871 bytes)
13. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:11:36 +1100; David Chinner wrote: The recent change to the internals of xfs_lowbit64 broke it on ia32 - the code treats the 64bit value as an unsigned long which is only 32 bits on ia32 and hence throws away the; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00253.html (10,219 bytes)
14. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:21:28 +1100; Because I thought that taking the address of a function parameter was a big no-no because the result is undefined (i.e. platform and compiler dependent)? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engin; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00255.html (10,355 bytes)
15. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:37:01 +1100; David Chinner wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:11:36PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: David Chinner wrote: The recent change to the internals of xfs_lowbit64 broke it on ia32 - the code treats the 64; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00256.html (10,811 bytes)
16. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:44:21 +1100; Whatever. They are both the same. xfs/xfs_types.h <global> 41 typedef unsigned long long int __uint64_t; Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00257.html (11,335 bytes)
17. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:35:52 +1100; David Chinner wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:37:01PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: David Chinner wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:11:36PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: David Chinner wrote: The re; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00260.html (11,701 bytes)
18. RE: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 04:14:02 -0800; I've never heard of this, and it's incorrect--at least with respect to standard C. (But that's not to say in practice some compiler does it wrong.) Unless it's a real (details known) problem you shou; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00264.html (9,984 bytes)
19. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:04:26 +1100; Alex Elder wrote: David Chinner wrote: . . . Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h == -- 2.6.x-xfs-new.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h 2007-11-02 13:44:45.000000000 +1100 +++ 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h 200; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00266.html (10,858 bytes)
20. Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:55:53 +1100; It caused me pain about 10 years ago with gcc 2.? and m68k platform, so I've just avoided doing it ever since. IMO, taking the address of a function parameter is also bad coding practice because it u; /archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00267.html (10,838 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]