xbolva00 marked an inline comment as done. xbolva00 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:11067 + + // Do not diagnose 2 ^ 64, but allow special case (2 ^ 64) - 1. + if (SubLHS && SubRHS && (LeftSideValue != 2 || RightSideValue != 64)) ---------------- xbolva00 wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > xbolva00 wrote: > > > xbolva00 wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > This comment explains what the code does, but not why it does it. > > > > > > Given that we're adding special cases, I think more comments here > > > > > > explaining why this is valuable would be appreciated. > > > > > Thank you, the comments helped! But they also raised another question > > > > > for me. What's special about 2^64? Why not (2^16) - 1 or other common > > > > > power-of-two values? I would have expected 8, 16, 32, and 64 to be > > > > > handled similarly. > > > > We generally suggest 1LL << C. But here we cant say 1LL << 64. > > > > > > > > (2^16)-1 is diagnosed normally since we go here from “visit xor” code. > > > > ^^^^ > > > > > > > > This (2^64)-1 handling was suggested by jfb. > > > > > > > > I see no motivation cases to diagnose 2^65, 2^100, ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the suggestion for (2^32)-1: > > > (1LL<32)-1 is good, or should we make things more complicated and suggest > > > Int max macro? > > > We generally suggest 1LL << C. But here we cant say 1LL << 64. > > > > Ah, good point. > > > > > I see no motivation cases to diagnose 2^65, 2^100, ... > > > > Me neither, I was more wondering about the common powers of two. > > > > > I think the suggestion for (2^32)-1: > > > (1LL<32)-1 is good, or should we make things more complicated and suggest > > > Int max macro? > > > > I feel like this is somewhat clang-tidy territory more than the compiler > > properly, including the 2^64 - 1 case, because it is likely to be very > > uncommon due to how specific it is. However, given that this only triggers > > on xor and only with integer literals, it shouldn't cause too much of a > > compilation slow-down in general to do it here. > > > > I tend to err on the side of consistency, so my feeling is that if we want > > the 64 case to suggest ULLONG, we'd want the other cases to behave > > similarly. Alternatively, rather than handling this specific issue in the > > compiler, handle it in a `bugprone` clang-tidy check where we can also give > > the user more control over how they want to correct their mistake (e.g., > > `std::numeric_limits<long>::max()` vs `LONG_MAX` vs `~0L`). > @jfb ? (There were no concerns about slowdown in the “base” patch). Maybe I should just revert it.. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
