On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 06:34:05PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:13:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> > I like the implementation approach used in ULONG_FOR_EACH_1 better than >> > the one in PRESENT_OPT_FOR_EACH, since the user doesn't have to provide >> > a scratch variable. Also it protects the macro arguments better. >> > Actually ULONG_FOR_EACH_1 could be made to work with 32- or 64-bit maps >> > just by changing "unsigned long" to "uint64_t" in its definition; maybe >> > we should. >> >> I looked at converting ULONG_FOR_EACH_1 but decided against it since >> it would introduce an additional branch (to decide whether to use >> __builtin_ctz or __builtin_ctz_ll) > > Really? It shouldn't, "__builtin_constant_p(n <= UINT32_MAX) && n <= > UINT32_MAX" should be a compile-time constant.\
You're right, it doesn't. I guess I didn't have enough faith that the compiler would be able to carry over the max value across an assignment to a larger variable but I checked and it was fine. I sent a patch to do it this way instead. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
