15 Sep
2021
15 Sep
'21
12:22 p.m.
Hi Neels,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 08:18:52AM +0200, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 02:45:42AM +0000,
scan-admin(a)coverity.com wrote:
Yes I know, but is it guaranteed on all archs in past and future that long long int is 64
bit?
it seems anything except IBM 370, PDP-11 etc. from that area (which has no long long)
has long long int as 64bit in the future who knows, maybe it gets even longer, who knows.
>>
CID 240103: (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
>> "val < -9223372036854775808LL /* -9223372036854775807L - 1 */"
is always false regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the logical
operand of "if".
1434 if (val < INT64_MIN) {
1435 if (result)
1436 *result = INT64_MIN;
1437 return -ERANGE;
1438 } I'd just ignore these warnings if that's ok
with everyone else.
Wouldn't they go away with a simple change from INT64_MIN/MAX to LLONG_MIN/MAX?
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)osmocom.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)