lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958#1173860, @vsk wrote:
> LGTM, although I think it'd be helpful to have another +1 just to be safe. Thank you for the review! It would indeed be great if someone else could take a look, especially since we are **so** close to the branching point. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958#1173860, @vsk wrote: > ... In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958#1173860, @vsk wrote: > These four at least don't look like false positives: > > - Maybe we should consider special-casing assignments of "-1" to unsigned > values? This seems somewhat idiomatic. I **personally** would use `~0U` there. One more datapoint: the `implicit-sign-change` will/should still complain about that case. So **personally** i'd like to keep it. > - At least a few of these are due to not being explicit about dropping the > high bits of hash_combine()'s result. Given that this check is opt-in, that > that seems like a legitimate diagnostic (lost entropy). > - The TargetLoweringBase.cpp diagnostic looks a bit scary. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
