Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:54:37 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > Clarify the whole signed vs unsigned issue for atomic_t. > > There has been enough confusion on this topic to warrant a few explicit > words I feel. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > --- > Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt > index 913396ac5824..dca3fb0554db 100644 > --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt > +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt > @@ -56,6 +56,23 @@ The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() > > > +TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
s/vs/vs.
> +----- > + > +While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64 > +respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow > +(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like > +2s-complement. > + > +Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly > +unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
s/UB/Undefined Behavior
Had to read that twice. Acronyms Seriously Suck.
> + > +There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for > +signed types. > + > +With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like > +P1236R1.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
| |