On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:40:23 -0400, Marco Leise <[email protected]> wrote:

Am Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:26:48 -0400
schrieb "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]>:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:15:01 -0400, Marco Leise <[email protected]> wrote:

> Am Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:56:27 -0400
> schrieb "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:56:54 -0400, Marco Leise <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Am Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:34:56 +0000
>> > schrieb "Brian Schott" <[email protected]>:
>> >
>> >> There's a small feature wishlist in the project's README, but I'd
>> >> like to get some opinions from the newsgroup: What kinds of
>> >> errors have you seen in your code that you think a static
>> >> analysis tool could help with?
>> >
>> > Yes, this one:
>> >
>> > size_t shiftAmount = 63;
>> > […]
>> > auto x = 1 << shiftAmount;
>> >
>> > The trouble is that auto will now resolve to int instead of
>> > size_t as indicated by the type of shiftAmount. Sure, my fault
>> > was to use an innocent »1« instead of »cast(size_t) 1«.
>>
>> You could use 1UL instead.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> No, that would give you a ulong result.

Hm... I was thinking in terms of 1 << 63, that must be a ulong, no?

Actually in _that_ case the compiler will yell at you that the
valid range to shift an »int« is [0..31].

*sigh* The compiler is too smart for it's own good ;)

This SHOULD compile and result in a long. I can't see how you would have meant anything else, and range propagation should work for a literal.


But I see your point that size_t may be 32 bits.

I also think this will work:

size_t(1);

-Steve

Both you and Artur mentioned it. Will this generalized ctor
syntax be in 2.066 ?

I don't know. I thought it was in 2.065, but see that it's not. I have read that it was introduced somewhere, so I assumed it was already in. Maybe only in git HEAD.

It looks much less like "code smell" when
you don't have to use a cast any more even if it is just a
rewrite.


Yeah definitely. Cast should not be required for such mundane and obviously safe things.

-Steve

Reply via email to