[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160328032709.GH9862@port70.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:27:10 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] add powerpc64 port
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2016-03-27 22:18:56 -0400]:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 07:32:20PM -0500, Bobby Bingham wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 07:37:09PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 04:20:19PM -0500, Bobby Bingham wrote:
> > > > +#define SA_NOCLDSTOP 1U
> > > > +#define SA_NOCLDWAIT 2U
> > > > +#define SA_SIGINFO 4U
> > > > +#define SA_ONSTACK 0x08000000U
> > > > +#define SA_RESTART 0x10000000U
> > > > +#define SA_NODEFER 0x40000000U
> > > > +#define SA_RESETHAND 0x80000000U
i guess at least this one has to be unsigned
and then others should follow
i think there are other cases where a 1U<<31 flag
forces all others to be unsigned otherwise there
are possible signed int overflow issues
(even though the linux uapi may use signed int)
e.g.
EPOLL* in sys/epoll.h
MS_NOUSER in sys/mount.h ?
> > > > +#define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000U
> > >
> > > Is there a reason for making these unsigned? It's different from other
> > > archs at least, I think.
> >
> > It's the same as the ppc32 port.
>
> OK. Maybe it should be changed but that's a separate issue.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
