On 19.08.2023 02:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@amd.com> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@amd.com> > --- > Changes in v2: > - use "shift" instead of << or >> > - use All Architectures (I haven't changed all the other instances of > x86/arm in the file yet) > --- > docs/misra/C-language-toolchain.rst | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/docs/misra/C-language-toolchain.rst > b/docs/misra/C-language-toolchain.rst > index 785aed1eaf..f5ca7bd2c8 100644 > --- a/docs/misra/C-language-toolchain.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/C-language-toolchain.rst > @@ -200,6 +200,12 @@ The table columns are as follows: > - ARM64, X86_64 > - See Section "6.29 Designated Initializers" of GCC_MANUAL > > + * - Signed shift acts on negative numbers by sign extension > + - All architectures > + - See Section "4.5 Integers" of GCC_MANUAL. As an extension to the > + C language, GCC does not use the latitude given in C99 and C11 > + only to treat certain aspects of signed shift as undefined.
I'm sorry, but that's still not what the doc says. Replacing << and >> by "shifts" was imo wrong. What's needed instead is that either this is split into two top-level bullet points (one for << and one for >>), or the first sub-bullet-point (which acts as kind of the title) be generalized, with the << and >> details fully moved to the "explanatory" sub-bullet-point. Jan
