On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:16:30PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > On 24/03/2025 at 22:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 06:23:13PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay > > wrote:
... > >> +/* > >> + * Fixed-type variants of BIT(), with additional checks like > >> GENMASK_TYPE(). The > >> + * following examples generate compiler warnings due to > >> shift-count-overflow: > > > > "...due to -Wshift-count-overflow:" ? > > > > Same idea — if you need a new version, since it's just a nit-pick. > > If you want. I staged this change locally, so if there is a v8, it will > be addressed. I applied the same to the previous patch which also > mentioned shift-count-overflow without the -W prefix. > > But honestly, I am not convinced of the added value. This is from Lucas > original patch one year ago, and no one was bothered by this. IMHO, when > writing: > > (...) generate compiler warnings due to shift-count-overflow: > > I do not see where the ambiguity is. The sentence clearly say that this > is a compiler warning, so with or without the -W prefix, the sentence is > equally understandable. As I marked, it's a nit-pick, but from my point of view the added value is immediate: The reader can be sure that we are talking about a compiler warning and not something else (C standard? some special term?). So it adds more context and makes it clearer. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
