Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:55:06 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Pending patches & other changes * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2015-04-28 09:46:47 -0400]: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:43:21AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > i forgot to do this one in elf.h: > > > > -#define SHF_EXCLUDE (1 << 31) > > +#define SHF_EXCLUDE (1U << 31) > > > > (there is no other invalid <<31) > > This was discussed quite a bit on libc-alpha (glibc list) and it seems > the consensus there is that changing the type to unsigned is > potentially dangerous and it would be better to use (-0x7fffffff-1) or > perhaps ((1<<30) * -2) if it's more clear. What do you think? > the glibc bikeshed ended with florian saying "I thought some more about this, and have changed my opinion completely. Making the constant unsigned is less risky than making it negative because of potential sign extension issues." https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-04/msg00264.html and they committed the original 1U<<31 patch today
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.