> On Jun 1, 2023, at 1:06 PM, Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/1/23 19:39, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> It's a false positive because the test is obviously intended for 32-bit >> longs. > > I'm not an expert in compiler development, but I do not understand > "obviously intended" in this context. An input literally compares > <any unsigned 32-bit> > <max unsigned 64-bit> / 8, which is always > false, and so the compiler complains. If "obviously intended" means > "the compiler should silently optimize away this check for LP64", > I would disagree, and that's why I would like to see the confirmation > from LLVM/clang developers. Dan, Dmitry, has there been any resolution of this issue? -- Chuck Lever
