On 23/06/20 20:41, Eric Blake wrote: > On 6/23/20 12:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Clang being clang and adding more pointless warnings. In a hardware >> emulator there are going to be plenty of bitwise operations, and the >> chance of someone writing ^ for pow and not being caught is basically >> zero. > > Did this warning actually fire? > > My understanding (from a quick glance of > https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423) is that it is supposed to catch > instances of '2 ^ 16' where someone meant '1 << 16' instead of 18. I > don't know if it is supposed to flag 'a ^ 16' (if it does, then it is > indeed useless), or only when both lhs and rhs are constants and where > lhs is 2 or 10, so my initial reaction is that without seeing an actual > false positive, we are premature in disabling it.
There is an instance of 2 ^ 20. But it's actually a bug. Objection (and faith in humanity) retracted. Paolo
