From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DA0A0547;
	Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:37:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF041608C7;
	Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:37:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3091F1608C6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:37:52 +0100 (CET)
IronPort-SDR: uL3uKXjrvnE3295dZlNRVSDgqLAcUHnynhHW9ELcbIHlQnB911amtCHW9dwYK/Ls+vzGVXn6rl
 EVX1yWbCyVCQ==
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9921"; a="188908238"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,244,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="188908238"
Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
 12 Mar 2021 09:37:51 -0800
IronPort-SDR: 04+1NVjsskYO4UuHBpPz/9sXoGQX9JHA/1xIh64lqPQ7LHh7zJC31IeQFxbPJv009nj6G03L9j
 BYKMpfXPZILg==
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,244,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="404491074"
Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.11.209])
 by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA;
 12 Mar 2021 09:37:49 -0800
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:37:41 +0000
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 david.hunt@intel.com
Message-ID: <20210312173741.GC937@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1615333490-15243-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
 <9ab8e965-b2ec-d554-d167-e3ed62ed62de@intel.com>
 <20210312170558.GA8084@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210312170558.GA8084@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal,
 power: don't use '-' sign with unsigned literals
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 09:05:58AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:51:46PM +0000, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> > On 09-Mar-21 11:44 PM, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> > >use ~0ULL instead of -1ULL to avoid contridctory application of '-' sign
> > >to integer literal where the desired type is unsigned.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> > >---
> > 
> > Not sure i agree. It's a very common pattern and is widely used and
> > understood. I mean, if anything, seeing `~0` would have me stop and
> > think as i've literally never seen such code before.
> 
> it produces warnings under some compilers. in some enterprises we are
> required to fix certain classes of warnings (not suppress them from the
> command line) as a function of security policies.
> 
> as an alternative would you be more willing to accept something like the
> following? ``(unsigned long long)-1LL'' if you don't like ``~0ULL'' it
> would make explicit what the compiler is already doing.
> 
> the issue is the application of the sign to what is clearly something not
> signed; it get's flagged. so the cast is an explicit expression of intent
> that will not generate the warnings.
> 
> appreciate you're help in finding a solution even if it isn't the
> proposed solution.
> 
What about using ULLONG_MAX and similar defines from limits.h?