Re: C language lawyers needed

[H. Peter Anvin]

Roland Dreier wrote:
> A fairly small test case that I don't understand either is:
>
> unsigned foo(int x)
> {
> 	return (((x & 0xffffff) | (1 << 30)) & 0xff000000) >> 24;
> }
>
> just running "gcc -c" (ie no extra warnings enabled) on that produces
> the same:
>
>     b.c: In function 'foo':
>     b.c:3: warning: integer overflow in expression
>
> I'm sure there's some promotion rule or something that makes sense of
> this, but it's a mystery to me...

Looks like a gcc bug to me.

0xff000000 is unsigned, like any hexadecimal constant.

unsigned foo(int x)
{
	return ((x & 0xffffff) | (1 << 30)) & 0x80000000;
}

... is enough to reproduce the bug -- explicitly casting either side or 
both of the & operator to unsigned doesn't affect the warning, either.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/