On 7 August 2015 at 16:57, Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> wrote:
> GCC (4.7) sees too wide shifts when there are none, refactor to
> circumvent the false error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
> ---
> lib/flow.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/flow.c b/lib/flow.c
> index af51aac..61d9bdf 100644
> --- a/lib/flow.c
> +++ b/lib/flow.c
> @@ -133,25 +133,34 @@ BUILD_MESSAGE("FLOW_WC_SEQ changed: miniflow_extract()
> will have runtime "
> #endif
>
> #define miniflow_set_map(MF, OFS) \
> - if ((OFS) < FLOW_TNL_U64S) { \
> - MINIFLOW_ASSERT(!(MF.maps.tnl_map & (UINT64_MAX << (OFS))) \
> +{ \
> + size_t ofs = (OFS); \
> + \
Being a bit pedantic here, but don't we usually use 'size_t' to
indicate a length in bytes? Seems like 'unsigned int' would be more
appropriate for bit-shifting.
Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
