On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 15:37:54 GMT, Archie Cobbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Maybe the line needs to be draw closer to "the code is probably > > buggy/highly suspicious". > > I'm OK with this more conservative approach, which should satisfy all the > "real hackers": instead of warning for values outside of the range `[0,n)` > (where `n` is 32 or 64), only warn for values outside of the range `(-n, n)`. I went ahead and updated this PR and the CSR to not warn about negative shifts that are otherwise in range. Please take a look at both and let me know what you guys think. We can always turn the screws harder in the future if appropriate. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27102#discussion_r2500850339
