On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > On 02/05/2017 09:10 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: >>> What's an archive input that actually fails? What's an example of a >>> processor machine language that doesn't produce 0x80000000 for 1<<31? >>> >>> Where does this actually cause a problem? >> >> I think at least this silences a "undefined behavior" warning, and that's >> enough for the patch. > > So the problem _is_ the warning? There's no real issue, just a noisy > compiler?
>From user's report I gather it's a runtime warning from some debugging tool, not a compile-time warning. I'm not using their runtime debug thing (I don't even know what it is), if some people would use it and find real bugs, it's good for me. Therefore, I'm willing to help them to not have false positives which make their life harder. Well, unless they want some intrusive and ugly changes. These changes were not. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
