rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44559#1040928, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44559#1040799, @rjmccall wrote: > > > I think we're correct not to warn here and that GCC/ICC are being noisy. > > The existence of a temporary promotion to a wider type doesn't justify > > warning on arithmetic between two operands that are the same size as the > > ultimate result. It is totally fair for users to think of this operation > > as being "closed" on the original type. > > > Could you please clarify, are you saying that PR35409 > <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409> is not a bug, and clang should > continue to not warn in those cases? Correct. > If we would have "conversion sanitizer" > <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530>, detection of such problems > would be easy, but without it, right now it is rather hard to detect such > issues... What issue? That arithmetic can overflow? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44559 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
