search for: thatyou

...server). The reason is that this particular file has been mentioned on the boost developer mailing list in a thread on compressed pointers/integer pairs. I'm working on bringing some code of mine up to boost standards for a review and I was tracking down all things in that thread. I noticed thatyou were doing things differently from me and I was wandering if there was a reason that I couldn't see. Are you aware of a reason? TIA, Maurizio --

around line 45 a bitmask is computed as: PointerBitMask = ~(uintptr_t)(((intptr_t)1 << PtrTraits::NumLowBitsAvailable)-1), my question is why is the shift performed on intptr_t? Wouldn't the following be ok? PointerBitMask = ~(((uintptr_t)1 << PtrTraits::NumLowBitsAvailable)-1), Thanks in advance, Maurizio

On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Maurizio Vitale wrote: > around line 45 a bitmask is computed as: > > PointerBitMask = > ~(uintptr_t)(((intptr_t)1 << PtrTraits::NumLowBitsAvailable)-1), > > my question is why is the shift performed on intptr_t? Wouldn't the > following be ok? > > PointerBitMask = > ~(((uintptr_t)1 <<

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:24:06 +1300 Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2023-11-26 at 21:03 -0500, James Johnson via samba wrote: > > Hello! > > I've encountered a CentOS 6.10 server running Samba 4.1.0 compiled > > fromsource running as a Domain Controller in a small office. It's > > being usedfor some basic AD