On Sun, Feb 25, 2024, at 13:19, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:11:34 +0100 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It's a false positive, but the compiler has no way to tell that only bits > 0 and 1 can be set. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240222222335.work.759-kees@xxxxxxxxxx/ > for discussion on why + the missing zero initialization bug Kees noticed whilst > looking at this code. > > Kees proposed an alternative way to suppress the warning that I've just applied. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240223172936.it.875-kees@xxxxxxxxxx/ Right, that's fine. > Your solution also works but leaves the implication of a real path to > overflow the buffer when there isn't one, hence I prefer what Kees had unless > some future version of clang trips over that in which case we can revisit. The idea with my patch was to make it obvious to the compiler that there can't be an overflow, which would ensure the warning doesn't come back. Kees' version works by avoiding whatever code path in the compiler trips over the warning, but it's more likely to come back later if something changes in the compiler itself, so there is a slight chance that we have it work around it again. Arnd
