[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Windows 64 port

From: Fabrice Popineau
Subject: Re: Windows 64 port
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:39:30 +0100

2012/2/28 Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> There is something wrong around lib/strftime.c:946
>           if (negative_number)
>             u_number_value = - u_number_value;
> u_number_value being unsigned, this is wrong.

I don't see anything wrong there.  The value of
-X is well-defined if X is unsigned int; it's
equivalent to ~X + 1.  Can you supply a test case
illustrating the actual bug?

Please bear in mind that the code is already
tested to LP64 hosts.  Any bug related to this
particular code would also be a bug on LP64 hosts,
no?  So, it's not likely that any bug here is specific
to Windows 64.  If there is a bug, it should be
describable and fixable independently of Windows 64.

I don't see things that way. Some things that would pass on LP64 because
ints are 64 bits may turn into a crash because of sign extension on Windows 64
promoting 32bits ints to 64bits ints. So I'm definitely more confident when ints are used 
without any abuse of any kind. I don't see the point with using an unsigned int to negate


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]