On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 09:51:48AM +0100, jacopo mondi wrote: > In your suggested fix: > > > (((vdelay >> 8) & 0x3) << 6) | > > (((vact >> 8) & 0x3) << 4) | > > (((hedelay >> 8) & 0x3) << 2) | > > ((hact >> 8) & 0x03); > > > > Won't your analyzer in that case point out that > "15 >> 8 is zero" again? I may have been underestimating it though > It will complain, yes, but it's a pretty common false positive and I have it in the back of my head to teach the static checker to look for that situation. Eventually I will get around to it. regards, dan carpenter
