Hey,
I have the following code:
#include
void LL_ADC_SetChannelSingleDiff(uint32_t * val, uint32_t Channel,
uint32_t SingleDiff)
{
*val = (*val & (~(Channel & 0x7U))) | ((Channel & 0x7U ) &
(0x7U << (SingleDiff & 0x20U)));
}
void test(uint32_t * testvar) {
LL_ADC_SetCha
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:49:30AM +, Moritz Strübe wrote:
> Considering that C11 6.5.7#3 ("If the value of the right operand
> is negative or is greater than or equal to the width of the promoted
> left operand, the behavior is undefined.") is not very widely known, as
> it "normal
On 11.03.2019 at 10:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> You could build with -fsanitize=undefined, that would tell you at runtime you
> have undefined behavior in your code (if the SingleDiff has bit ever 0x20
> set).
Yes, that helps. Unfortunately I'm on an embedded system, thus the code
size increase is
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:06:37AM +, Moritz Strübe wrote:
> On 11.03.2019 at 10:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > You could build with -fsanitize=undefined, that would tell you at runtime
> > you
> > have undefined behavior in your code (if the SingleDiff has bit ever 0x20
> > set).
>
> Yes, that
On 2019-03-11 11:06:37 +, Moritz Strübe wrote:
> On 11.03.2019 at 10:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The fact that negative or >= bit precision shifts are UB is widely known,
[...]
And even in the case where the compiler maps the shift directly to
the asm shift (without optimizations), the behavio
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 17:27, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 08:30:19AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, 02:23 Eric Gallager, wrote:
> > > How would it handle the case where the parameter name is missing
> > > entirely from the prototype? I see a lot of
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 17:51, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> And not checking system headers is reasonable in general. For RTEMS though,
> we are implementing those system headers and do follow the names in the
> standards for parameter names in the implementation.
Using exactly the names from the standa
Hi.
For a test-case like:
───┬─
│ File: test.cpp
───┼─
1 │ template
2 │ T
3 │ abs(T x) {
4 │ if (x < 0) {
5 │ return -x;
6 │ } else {
7 │ return x;
8 │
On 11/03/2019 12:24, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2019-03-11 11:06:37 +, Moritz Strübe wrote:
>> On 11.03.2019 at 10:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> The fact that negative or >= bit precision shifts are UB is widely known,
> [...]
>
> And even in the case where the compiler maps the shift directly
Hi.
I would like to add %' into __gcc_gfc__ in order to handle:
./xgcc -B. /tmp/module.ii -Wformat -c
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c: In function ‘void
dump_module(const char*, int)’:
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c:6205:19: warning: unknown
conversion type
On 3/11/19 8:18 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
I would like to add %' into __gcc_gfc__ in order to handle:
./xgcc -B. /tmp/module.ii -Wformat -c
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c: In function ‘void
dump_module(const char*, int)’:
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c:6
On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 15:18 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I would like to add %' into __gcc_gfc__ in order to handle:
>
> ./xgcc -B. /tmp/module.ii -Wformat -c
> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c: In function ‘void
> dump_module(const char*, int)’:
> /home/marxin/Programmin
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:07:55PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 15:18 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I would like to add %' into __gcc_gfc__ in order to handle:
> >
> > ./xgcc -B. /tmp/module.ii -Wformat -c
> > /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c:
13 matches
Mail list logo
