...
> That would instead be more than 512-16=496 CPUs, correct? 496 CPUs would
> only require a 31-bit shift, which should be OK, but 497 would require
> a 32-bit shift, which would result in sign extension. If it turns out
> that sign extension is OK, then we should get in trouble at 513 CPUs,
> which would result in a 33-bit shift (and is that even defined in C?).
Not quite right :-)
(1 << 31) is int and negative, that gets sign extended before
being converted to 'unsigned long' - so has the top 33 bits set.
(1 << 32) is undefined, the current x86 cpu ignore the high
shift bits so it is (1 << 0).
If the mask is being used to optimise a search the code might
just happen to work!
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)