On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 05:53:57PM -0800, Andre Muezerie wrote: > MSVC issues the warnings below: > > 1) ../lib/hash/rte_thash_gf2_poly_math.c(128): warning C4334: '<<': > result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 bits > (was 64-bit shift intended?) > > The code would be better off by using 64 bit numbers to begin with. > That eliminates the need for a conversion to 64 bits later. > > 2) ../lib/hash/rte_thash.c(568): warning C4334: '<<': > result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 bits > (was 64-bit shift intended?) > > 1ULL should be used as the result of the bit shift gets multiplied > by sizeof(uint32_t). > > Signed-off-by: Andre Muezerie <andre...@linux.microsoft.com> > ---
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > lib/hash/rte_thash.c | 2 +- > lib/hash/rte_thash_gf2_poly_math.c | 6 +++--- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/hash/rte_thash.c b/lib/hash/rte_thash.c > index fa78787143..f076311b57 100644 > --- a/lib/hash/rte_thash.c > +++ b/lib/hash/rte_thash.c > @@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ rte_thash_add_helper(struct rte_thash_ctx *ctx, const > char *name, uint32_t len, > offset; > > ent = rte_zmalloc(NULL, sizeof(struct rte_thash_subtuple_helper) + > - sizeof(uint32_t) * (1 << ctx->reta_sz_log), > + sizeof(uint32_t) * (1ULL << ctx->reta_sz_log), > RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE); Is there a reason not to use RTE_BIT64 here too?
