ron minnich wrote: > >> In the light of all this, I mean to have found a bug in romcc, > > > > No doubt.
(Yes, doubt.) > > Did your research so far allow you to also suggest a fix? > > romcc is end of life and unmaintained for many years now. > > I think it is a mistake to change something this fundamental unless > you can test it across platforms. There may be code out there that > depends on this bug .... That is a really good point. Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > > did you by a chance confused '&' and '&&" as in your examples? > > I believe Andriy is right. The expected outcome of the calculation > above is indeed 1. I agree. Well done noticing the extra &! //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
