Re: Re: Patches AMD 64 next try...

[email protected]
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gnu.gift.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:33:45PM +0100, Wolfgang Müller wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 February 2007 21:11, you wrote:
> 
> Great! GDB is good :-) .
> 
> > this goes away if you change x or y into a uint64_t.
> >
> > i'm scared. i'd love an answer to this one. other than "magic."
> 
> No it's not magic :-) in one case you do a 32 bit addition to a 64 bit value. 
> Bit 31 overflows, but it is ignored. In fact, you have done a addition of a 
> negative 32 bit number to the 64 bit base address.
> 
> If you do a 64 bit addition, bit 31 overflows into bit 32 and is taken into 
> account. Everything right. "Alles palletti :-) " as some people say over 
> here. Any protests?
> 
> This seems to be it, correct? We just have to check that all indexes stay in 
> our 256x256 square.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wolfgang
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Wolfgang Müller
> LS Medieninformatik
> Universität Bamberg
> Check out the SIG MM web site http://www.sigmm.org


OK, i'm dumb. ;)

its worth mentioning, the fix for this should likely be the same as the "hack" in my patch.

uint_fast32_t is 32bit on ia32, and 64bit on AMD64.

i'll try to compile gift on my PPC sometime soon (playstation 3 power/cell), and make sure everything compiles right.

Julia Longtin <[email protected]>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.