On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 19:35 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 19/06/2018 19:23, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 10:08 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:19 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 15/06/2018 20:45, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case I think it it preferable to fix the code over disabling > > > > > > > the warning, unless the warning is bogus or there are just too many > > > > > > > occurrences. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe. > > > > > > > > > > Spurious warning today, actual bug tomorrow? I prefer to not to > > > > > disable warnings wholesale. They don't need to find actual bugs to be > > > > > useful. Flagging code that can be further specified does not hurt. > > > > > Part of the effort to compile the kernel with different compilers is > > > > > to add warning coverage, not remove it. That said, there may be > > > > > warnings that are never useful (or at least due to some invariant that > > > > > only affects the kernel). I cant think of any off the top of my head, > > > > > but I'm also not sure this is one. > > > > > > > > This one really makes the code uglier though, so I'm not really inclined > > > > to applying the patch. > > > > > > Note that of the three variables (w, u, x), only u is used later on. > > > What about declaring them as negated with the cast, that way there's > > > no cast in a ternary? > > > > It'd be simpler to cast in the BYTE_MASK macro itself > > I don't think that would work, as the ~ would be done on a zero-extended > signed int. True, but the whole concept is dubious. The implicit casts are all over the place, not just in the file.
