[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [pkcs11] Ones Complement versus Twos Complement - RE: Use CK_UNAVAILABLE_INFORMATION
On 13.06.2013 01:07, Tim Hudson wrote: > Here is a proposal for consideration: > > For PKCS11 v2.40 change the current definition of: > #define CK_UNAVAILABLE_INFORMATION (~0UL) > To the following: > #define CK_UNAVAILABLE_INFORMATION ((CK_ULONG)-1) > > I believe this actually matches the original intent of the define - and > that allowance for a ones-complement representation of negative numbers > was simply overlooked. Was the original intent to have a CK_ULONG with all bits set to one? Because to me "(CK_ULONG)-1" seems meaningless without making such an assumption. If that's the case, then ~OUL represents exactly that: an unsigned long with all bits set to 1. So unless I'm wrong above, I would be in favor of keeping the current definition. As Wan-Teh said, it's clearer. Cheers, Stef
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]