On 5 June 2015 at 16:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The GCC manual says "GCC does not use the latitude given in C99 and C11
> only to treat certain aspects of signed '<<' as undefined, but this is
> subject to change". It would certainly be nice if they removed the
> "this is subject to change" part.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The GCC manual says "GCC does not use the latitude given in C99 and C11
> only to treat certain aspects of signed '<<' as undefined, but this is
> subject to change". It would certainly be nice if they removed the
> "this is subject to change" part.
The
On 05/06/2015 17:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> ...but things like "(1U << 31)" are entirely valid.
>>
>> They're only valid until someone does a ~ on them. I think it's
>> reasonable to forbid them in our coding standards, if we want to fix
>> ubsan's warning of (1 << 31).
>>
>> I don't think it'
