On 10/17/16 17:23, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2016.09.29 at 18:52 +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 09/29/16 20:03, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>>> <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote:
>>>> On 09/28/16 16:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Bernd Edlinger
>>>>> <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/27/16 16:42, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bernd Edlinger
>>>>>>> <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/27/16 16:10, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> * Bernd Edlinger:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> “0 << 0” is used in a similar context, to create a zero constant
>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>> multi-bit subfield of an integer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This example comes from GDB, in bfd/elf64-alpha.c:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> | insn = INSN_ADDQ | (16 << 21) | (0 << 16) | (0 << 0);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course that is not a boolean context, and will not get a warning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Question is if "if (1 << 0)" is possibly a miss-spelled "if (1 < 0)".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe 1 and 0 come from macro expansion....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But what's the intent of treating 1 << 0 and 0 << 0 differently in the
>>>>>>>>> patch, then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not sure if it was a good idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I saw, we had code of the form
>>>>>>>> bool flag = 1 << 2;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> another value LOOKUP_PROTECT is 1 << 0, and
>>>>>>>> bool flag = 1 << 0;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> would at least not overflow the allowed value range of a boolean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assigning a bit mask to a bool variable is still probably not what was
>>>>>>> intended, even if it doesn't change the value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That works for me too.
>>>>>> I can simply remove that exception.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good.
>>>>
>>>> Great. Is that an "OK with that change"?
>>>
>>> What do you think about dropping the TYPE_UNSIGNED exception as well?
>>> I don't see what difference that makes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If I drop that exception, then I could also drop the check for
>> INTEGER_TYPE and the whole if, because I think other types can not
>> happen, but if they are allowed they are as well bogus here.
>>
>> I can try a bootstrap and see if there are false positives.
>>
>> But I can do that as well in a follow-up patch, this should probably
>> be done step by step, especially when it may trigger some false
>> positives.
>>
>> I think I could also add more stuff, like unary + or - ?
>> or maybe also binary +, -, * and / ?
>>
>> We already discussed making this a multi-level option,
>> and maybe enabling the higher level explicitly in the
>> boot-strap.
>>
>> As long as the warning continues to find more bugs than false
>> positives, it is probably worth extending it to more cases.
>>
>> However unsigned integer shift are not undefined if they overflow.
>>
>> It is possible that this warning will then trigger also on valid
>> code that does loop termination with unsigned int left shifting.
>> I dont have a real example, but maybe like this hypothetical C-code:
>>
>> unsigned int x=1, bits=0;
>> while (x << bits) bits++;
>> printf("bits=%d\n", bits);
>>
>>
>> Is it OK for everybody to warn for this on -Wall, or maybe only
>> when -Wextra or for instance -Wint-in-bool-context=2 is used ?
>
> I'm seeing this warning a lot in valid low level C code for unsigned
> integers. And I must say it look bogus in this context. Some examples:
>
> return ((a.high & 0x7fff) == 0x7fff) && (a.low<<1);
>
With the shift op, the result depends on integer promotion rules,
and if the value is signed, it can invoke undefined behavior.
But if a.low is a unsigned short for instance, a warning would be
more than justified here.
> if ( (uint32_t) ( aSig<<( shiftCount & 31 ) ) ) {
>
Yes interesting, aSig is signed int, right?
So if the << will overflow, the code is invoking undefined behavior.
> && (uint64_t) (extractFloatx80Frac(a) << 1))
>
What is the result type of extractFloatx80Frac() ?
> if ((plen < KEYLENGTH) && (key << plen))
>
This is from linux, yes, I have not seen that with the first
version where the warning is only for signed shift ops.
At first sight it looks really, like could it be that "key < plen"
was meant? But yes, actually it works correctly as long
as int is 32 bit, if int is 64 bits, that code would break
immediately.
I think in the majority of code, where the author was aware of
possible overflow issues and integer promotion rules, he will
have used unsigned integer types, of sufficient precision.
I think all of the places where I have seen this warning was issued for
wrong code it was with signed integer shifts.
Bernd.
