Quuxplusone added a comment.
In D63423#2732152 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423#2732152>, @hvdijk wrote:
> It's bad enough that this warns for
>
> #define A 2
> int f() { return A ^ 1; }
>
> where as far as the users of A are concerned...
I see how this warning is arguably overzealous in the //very special case// of
"raising" to the constant `1` (since nobody would ever write that by accident).
However, if the user of A wants to indicate that they understand this is
bitwise-xor, they can simply change the body of their `f` to `return A ^ 0x1;`
— hex notation suppresses the warning. (Changing the definition of `A` as well
is perhaps a good idea but not technically required.) IMO this is good enough
and we should leave it. (What do you think, having seen the `A ^ 0x1`
workaround? Does that sufficiently address your needs?)
> [...] I'm not seeing from the previous discussion whether this case was based
> on real world programmer errors or not
The description links to a couple of tweets showing examples from the wild:
https://twitter.com/jfbastien/status/1139298419988549632
https://twitter.com/mikemx7f/status/1139335901790625793
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
