> On Aug 12, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On 7 August 2015 at 16:57, Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com > <mailto: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. >
Changed, thanks for the review! Pushed to master, Jarno > Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com > <mailto:joestrin...@nicira.com>> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
