Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> This can easily be fixed, see the attached diff. Could you patch the
> upstream version and repeat the clang test?
The patch looks good. Can you please push it yourself? I'll then repeat
the clang UBsan test.
Bruno
Hi Bruno,
thanks for exhibiting this. The complaint by the UB sanitizer is
correct. Although the code won't use the 64-bit value shifted by 65,
it is technically UB. When I wrote the code, I erroneously assumed
that it would not be UB, but that the result of the shift would be
implementation-depen
