<arei.gong...@huawei.com> writes:
> From: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com>
>
> Potentially overflowing expression "1 << prop->bitnr" with
> type "int" (32 bits, signed) is evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic,
> and then used in a context that expects an expression of type
> "uint64_t" (64 bits, unsigned).
>
> Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com>
> ---
> hw/core/qdev-properties.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/core/qdev-properties.c b/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
> index a1606de..f78b335 100644
> --- a/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
> +++ b/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
> @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ PropertyInfo qdev_prop_bit = {
> static uint64_t qdev_get_prop_mask64(Property *prop)
> {
> assert(prop->info == &qdev_prop_bit);
> - return 0x1 << prop->bitnr;
> + return 0x1ull << prop->bitnr;
> }
>
> static void bit64_prop_set(DeviceState *dev, Property *props, bool val)
In my opionion, the 0x in 0x1ull is pure noise :)
