* Bernd Edlinger: >> “0 << 0” is used in a similar context, to create a zero constant for a >> multi-bit subfield of an integer. >> >> This example comes from GDB, in bfd/elf64-alpha.c: >> >> | insn = INSN_ADDQ | (16 << 21) | (0 << 16) | (0 << 0); >> > > Of course that is not a boolean context, and will not get a warning. > > Question is if "if (1 << 0)" is possibly a miss-spelled "if (1 < 0)". > > Maybe 1 and 0 come from macro expansion....
But what's the intent of treating 1 << 0 and 0 << 0 differently in the patch, then?
