[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D131999: [libcxx] Resolve warnings for Wshift-sign-overflow
Mark de Wever via Phabricator via libcxx-commits
libcxx-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Aug 17 10:01:55 PDT 2022
Mordante added inline comments.
================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__chrono/duration.h:215
static const intmax_t __d2 = _R2::den / __gcd_d1_d2;
- static const intmax_t max = -((intmax_t(1) << (sizeof(intmax_t) * CHAR_BIT - 1)) + 1);
+ static const intmax_t max = numeric_limits<intmax_t>::max();
----------------
philnik wrote:
> Mordante wrote:
> > philnik wrote:
> > > That's a very complex way to write `numeric_limits<intmax_t>::max()`.
> > This is a private field is there a reason not to use an __ugly name?
> > @philnik shouldn't clang-tidy have spotted this?
> I think clang-tidy currently only checks parameters and private non-static members. I'm sure there is a configuration for `readability-identifier-naming` for this case. I'll check that when the simpler cases are checked. (BTW `readability-` is a complete misnomer for our purposes).
Ah that explains it. I thought it did all privates.
> (BTW `readability-` is a complete misnomer for our purposes).
:-D good luck filing a bug report ;-)
================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__chrono/duration.h:215
static const intmax_t __d2 = _R2::den / __gcd_d1_d2;
- static const intmax_t max = -((intmax_t(1) << (sizeof(intmax_t) * CHAR_BIT - 1)) + 1);
+ static const intmax_t max = numeric_limits<intmax_t>::max();
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> philnik wrote:
> > Mordante wrote:
> > > philnik wrote:
> > > > That's a very complex way to write `numeric_limits<intmax_t>::max()`.
> > > This is a private field is there a reason not to use an __ugly name?
> > > @philnik shouldn't clang-tidy have spotted this?
> > I think clang-tidy currently only checks parameters and private non-static members. I'm sure there is a configuration for `readability-identifier-naming` for this case. I'll check that when the simpler cases are checked. (BTW `readability-` is a complete misnomer for our purposes).
> Ah that explains it. I thought it did all privates.
>
> > (BTW `readability-` is a complete misnomer for our purposes).
>
> :-D good luck filing a bug report ;-)
> I think clang-tidy currently only checks parameters and private non-static members. I'm sure there is a configuration for `readability-identifier-naming` for this case. I'll check that when the simpler cases are checked. (BTW `readability-` is a complete misnomer for our purposes).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131999/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131999
More information about the libcxx-commits
mailing list