On 30 July 2015 at 19:41, John Snow wrote:
> Peter: I assume you still want this for 2.4 to fix the clang warnings, yes?
Yeah, it's safe enough. (I don't actually require these clang
warnings all fixed for 2.4; but it's a nice-to-have.)
thanks
-- PMM
Peter: I assume you still want this for 2.4 to fix the clang warnings, yes?
On 07/21/2015 02:02 PM, John Snow wrote:
> There are likely others that could be updated, but we'll
> go with a light touch for 2.4 for now.
>
> Without the Unsigned specifier, this shifts bits into the
> signed bit, whic
