18 Aug
2016
18 Aug
'16
11:55 a.m.
On Wednesday 17 of August 2016 16:26:26 Jim wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 03:00 (+0200), Slávek Banko
wrote:
It does not make sense to have in the code (short)0xFFFFFFFF.
Combination 'short' together with the value for which is insufficient
signed long, with the idea 'compiler will do something with this' has no
meaningful reason.
Format ~0 looks good, but I'm afraid of possible complications:
1) hash tables are generated by kjs/create_hash_table (perl script) - it
would have to verify what would be the behavior with expressions instead
of simple values.
2) enum values can be used in the code for the bindings to other
languages - such as python. Use expressions instead of simple values
could cause problems.
Therefore, I believe that the use of the simple value -1 makes more sense.
--
Slávek
Hi all,
I noticed during current builgs, on Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety) and now
also on Debian 9 (Stretch) was changed the default compiler to GCC6.
This brings the number of new FTBFS. That's why I started to
concentrate on these FTBFS. Note - for this reason the packages for
Yakkety in Preliminary Stable Builds are now inconsistent.
As a first, of course, I started with tdelibs. Most were simple
conflict signed / unsigned char or int. However, one serious problem
is here.
In the 'kjs' and 'tdehtml/ecma' is used HashEntry structure that
contains the item 'value' of type short int - see 'kjs/lookup.h'.
Into this item was stored values DOM::NodeFilter::ShowCode::SHOW_ALL
= 0xFFFFFFFF (see tdehtml/dom/dom2_traversal.h) and kjs event CHANGE
with value 32768 (see tdehtml/ecma/kjs_events.cpp). Both are
therefore outside the range of short int.
Changing the type of 'value' in HashEntry from short to long would
apparently cause a change in ABI - kjs/lookup.h is part of the public
includes. That's why I made the change values 0xFFFFFFFF and 32768 to
-1. I think that GCC compilers version less than 6 will store these
values in the same way. Therefore, I believe that the proposed patch
would not cause problems == can be pushed. What is your opinion?
Is anyone compiling this for a 1's complement hardware platform?
If so, that could be an issue (now or in the future).
I don't have any gcc 6.0 machine to play with, so here are some
alternative thoughts, for what they are worth.
Would (short)0xFFFFFFFF make it happy? Or how about ~0 (or ~(short)0)
to get all 1 bits?
Cheers.
Jim