> On 05/14/2022 8:53 PM Gary E. Miller via devel <devel@ntpsec.org> wrote: > > > Yo Hal! > > On Sat, 14 May 2022 17:42:59 -0700 > Hal Murray via devel <devel@ntpsec.org> wrote: > > > I'm cc-ing devel so this doesn't get lost on gitlab. Let's move the > > discussion real email.. > > > > > > > include/ntp_fp.h:58 defines l_fp as a uint64_4, I can find no > > > current contrary definitions. > > > > We need to make a cleanup pass in this area. > > > > On the wire, it's unsigned. As soon as the code gets 2 of them, it > > does a subtract so we need a signed version. We need to check for > > underflow on the initial subtract. > > > > There is also u_fp, a 32 bit version. The comment says there is a > > s_fp, but I can't find it. > > > > ------- > > > > I think we should comment out this test until we get the release out. > > Please include references to both issues and this message/thread. > > I'm OK with commenting it out, just the two lines, until we figure out > what clang is doing. But I'd rather figure it out...
I figured it out a while back and apparently failed to post my work to bug 714. It has to do with whether l_fp_abs is inlined and/or optimized IIRC. I had a (partial) disasembly, but I threw it away. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
