On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:48:30PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > > > > Sure it does. You should just have written the code using > > > > > > (size_t)1, > > > > > > or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t is > > > > > > unsigned long long. > > > > > > > > > > > > ... Unless what you meant was "get rid of all 32-bit ports" :-) > > > > > > > > > > Well, there is Win64 and this is essentially portable code... > > > > > > > > so use (size_t)1 then. > > > > > > Point remains that the original code is correct and no overflow can > > > happen. As such lint's behavior is just bogus. > > > > Warning about 64->32 truncation is useful. Coding to avoid unnecessary > > ones is straightforward. I think you're complaining only because you > > got caught out by it :-) > > Which part of "it can't truncate" is hard to understand? I am > complaining because it is no reason to error out.
And why should the/any static analyzer have to figure that out when coding it right makes it a nonissue? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
