On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 2:16 PM Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: > > supported_xcr0 = > > - ((uint64_t) x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(NULL, > > FEAT_XSAVE_XCR0_HI) << 32) | > > + x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(NULL, FEAT_XSAVE_XCR0_HI) > > << 32 | > > x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(NULL, FEAT_XSAVE_XCR0_LO); > > + supported_xss = > > + x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(NULL, FEAT_XSAVE_XSS_HI) << > > 32 | > > + x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(NULL, FEAT_XSAVE_XSS_LO); > > x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word() returns a 64 bit value > which may have bits set in the top half (notably it returns > ~0 for some cases), but the shift by 32 throws away those > top bits, so Coverity complains about a possible overflow. > > Is this an actual problem, or a "can't-happen" false positive?
These four are 32-bit, indeed. Paolo
