[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ86T=W+3xiAE3UmBvkO5-t0LT3+dSKS1otvc9Y8EWZ+JLm0Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:45:58 -0800
From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: expectations for a_ctz_64(0)
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
> * Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com> [2017-11-30 14:41:32 -0800]:
>> Currently the generic and aarch64 versions of a_ctz_64() give
>> different results for 0:
>>
>> a_ctz_64_generic(0) : 0
>> a_ctz_64_aarch64(0) : 64
>>
>> That doesn't matter for the ffs functions, but for the other users of
>> a_ctz_l and a_ctz_64 (ie malloc and qsort) it's less clear.
>>
>> Does musl rely on a specific behaviour?
>
> no, that would be a bug.
>
> same for clz
Good. Thanks for confirming.
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.
