Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] bits: introduce fixed-type BIT_U*()

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:16:30PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> On 24/03/2025 at 22:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 06:23:13PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:


...

> >> +/*
> >> + * Fixed-type variants of BIT(), with additional checks like GENMASK_TYPE(). The
> >> + * following examples generate compiler warnings due to shift-count-overflow:
> > 
> > "...due to -Wshift-count-overflow:" ?
> > 
> > Same idea — if you need a new version, since it's just a nit-pick.
> 
> If you want. I staged this change locally, so if there is a v8, it will
> be addressed. I applied the same to the previous patch which also
> mentioned shift-count-overflow without the -W prefix.
> 
> But honestly, I am not convinced of the added value. This is from Lucas
> original patch one year ago, and no one was bothered by this. IMHO, when
> writing:
> 
>   (...) generate compiler warnings due to shift-count-overflow:
> 
> I do not see where the ambiguity is. The sentence clearly say that this
> is a compiler warning, so with or without the -W prefix, the sentence is
> equally understandable.

As I marked, it's a nit-pick, but from my point of view the added value
is immediate: The reader can be sure that we are talking about a compiler
warning and not something else (C standard? some special term?). So it adds
more context and makes it clearer.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko