> On Nov 16, 2020, at 6:42 PM, David Blaikie via cfe-users
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 4:49 PM Sven Köhler via cfe-users
> mailto:cfe-users@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 16.11.20 um 21:49 schrieb David Blaikie via cfe-users:
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:36 PM Sven Köhler via cfe
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 4:49 PM Sven Köhler via cfe-users
wrote:
>
> Am 16.11.20 um 21:49 schrieb David Blaikie via cfe-users:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:36 PM Sven Köhler via cfe-users
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you elaborate what is happening here?
> >
> > I believe/would guess the goal is to
Am 16.11.20 um 21:49 schrieb David Blaikie via cfe-users:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:36 PM Sven Köhler via cfe-users
> wrote:
>>
>> Can you elaborate what is happening here?
>
> I believe/would guess the goal is to reduce false positives (where a
> false positive is defined as "warning on code
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:36 PM Sven Köhler via cfe-users
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> consider the following code:
>
> uint16_t testa4(uint8_t x, uint8_t y) {
> return ( (uint16_t)x << 0 )
> | ( (uint16_t)y << 8 );
> }
> uint16_t testb3(uint16_t x, uint16_t y) {
> return x|y;
> }
> uin
Hi,
> even though the two operands of the bitwise-or are both uint16_t.
That's not true. I had many more versions of the test code before I
posted here and I got confused. In testa4, the operands of the
bitwise-or are both ints due to the bitshift which performs and integer
promotion.
Kind Rega
Hi,
consider the following code:
uint16_t testa4(uint8_t x, uint8_t y) {
return ( (uint16_t)x << 0 )
| ( (uint16_t)y << 8 );
}
uint16_t testb3(uint16_t x, uint16_t y) {
return x|y;
}
uint16_t testb4(uint16_t x, uint16_t y) {
return x+y;
}
int testb4x(uint16_t x, uint16_t y
