On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:37:43PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:22:57AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:04:16AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > Yes, intentional and consistent with previous code. > > > > The usage of unsigned for BYTESWAP avoid sign extension during > > > > arithmetic. > > > > > > If BYTESWAP has such issues (and I don't think it does), then this should > > > be > > > fixed. > > > ack on being consistent with what was done before. > > > > > > Christophe > > > > > > > Looking at macro sources do not seem to have such issue. > > > > OT: Looking at macro sources why don't we use asm/swab.h or byteswap.h on > > Linux? > > They provide support for more architectures. Or something like > > Even el6 has gcc 4.4, I'd just drop the whole #elif defined (__GNUC__) && > (__GNUC__ >= 2) && defined (__OPTIMIZE__) > block and only keep __builtin_bswap*() and the generic fallback.
by the way, for the series, Acked-by: Christophe Fergeau <cferg...@redhat.com> > > Christophe > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
