Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
22 Oct 2002 22:57:59 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Burton Windle: "CS4236B stopping working as of 2.5.44"
Previous message: Shawn: "Re: trivial netfilter compile problem in 2.5.4[34]-mm2"
Next in thread: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"
Reply: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"

On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 22:27, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On PA-RISC we have 36 signals defined for hpux compatibility. So M()
> and T() in kernel/signal.c try to do (1UL << 33) which is garbage on 32-bit
> architectures. How do people feel about this patch?

How does the compiler output look ?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Burton Windle: "CS4236B stopping working as of 2.5.44"
Previous message: Shawn: "Re: trivial netfilter compile problem in 2.5.4[34]-mm2"
Next in thread: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"
Reply: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] use 1ULL instead of 1UL in kernel/signal.c"