rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44559#1044186, @avt77 wrote:
> >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44559#1040799, @rjmccall wrote: > >> > >>> I think we're correct not to warn here and that GCC/ICC are being noisy. > >>> The existence of a temporary promotion to a wider type doesn't justify > >>> warning on arithmetic between two operands that are the same size as the > >>> ultimate result. It is totally fair for users to think of this operation > >>> as being "closed" on the original type. > >> > >> > >> Could you please clarify, are you saying that PR35409 > >> <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409> is not a bug, and clang > >> should continue to not warn in those cases? > > > > Correct. > > Does it mean we should abandon this revision? On the other hand it's a real > bug, isn't it? Not as I see it, no. https://reviews.llvm.org/D44559 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
