aaron.ballman added a comment. In D66397#1639749 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397#1639749>, @thakis wrote:
> >> I think I missed the workaround. I only saw the suggestion to write 0x2 > >> instead of 2 which doesn't seem more clear at all to me. Was there another > >> fix suggestion? > > > > Nope, you didn't miss it -- that was the suggestion. Using a hex notation > > is the way we let programmers signify that they want to do bit fiddling. > > Sorry, I don't buy that :) If I wasn't aware it's there to suppress a > warning, if I saw `0x2` I'd think the author of that was confused about what > the `0x` prefix does. I don't understand how you draw that conclusion, but the reason behind why we went with that as a way to silence the diagnostic is because using the prefix acts as a signal that the developer wants to do bit manipulation more than just a decimal literal does. It's not ideal because it's largely a hidden way to silence diagnostics, but it's also not the only place where we do that sort of thing (like surrounding something in parens to silence a diagnostic, or casting something to void, etc). > Maybe a better fixit is to suggest `xor` instead of `^` which also suppresses > the warning and which is imho a bit less weird. (`xor` is so rare that it's > still a bit weird though.) I don't think suggesting a fixit for `xor` is a good solution. For starters, you need a header included in order to use that for C. As a textual suggestion "; use the 'xor' alternative token to perform an exclusive OR" wouldn't bother me too much though. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
