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
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ