```
src/UnwindCursor.hpp:1344:51: error: operator '?:' has lower precedence than '|';
'|' will be evaluated first [-Werror,-Wbitwise-conditional-parentheses]
_info.flags = isSingleWordEHT ? 1 : 0 | scope32 ? 0x2 : 0; // Use enum?
~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
src/UnwindCursor.hpp:1344:51: note: place parentheses around the '|' expression
to silence this warning
_info.flags = isSingleWordEHT ? 1 : 0 | scope32 ? 0x2 : 0; // Use enum?
^
( )
src/UnwindCursor.hpp:1344:51: note: place parentheses around the '?:' expression
to evaluate it first
_info.flags = isSingleWordEHT ? 1 : 0 | scope32 ? 0x2 : 0; // Use enum?
^
( )
```
But `0 |` is a no-op for either of those two interpretations, so I think
what was meant here was
```
_info.flags = (isSingleWordEHT ? 1 : 0) | (scope32 ? 0x2 : 0); // Use enum?
```
Previously, if `isSingleWordEHT` was set, bit 2 would never be set. Now
it is. From what I can tell, the only thing that checks these bitmask is
ProcessDescriptors in Unwind-EHABI.cpp, and that only cares about bit 1,
so in practice this shouldn't have much of an effect.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73890
// If the high bit is set, the exception handling table entry is inline inside
// the index table entry on the second word (aka |indexDataAddr|). Otherwise,
- // the table points at an offset in the exception handling table (section 5 EHABI).
+ // the table points at an offset in the exception handling table (section 5
+ // EHABI).
pint_t exceptionTableAddr;
uint32_t exceptionTableData;
bool isSingleWordEHT;
_info.unwind_info = exceptionTableAddr;
_info.lsda = lsda;
// flags is pr_cache.additional. See EHABI #7.2 for definition of bit 0.
- _info.flags = isSingleWordEHT ? 1 : 0 | scope32 ? 0x2 : 0; // Use enum?
+ _info.flags = (isSingleWordEHT ? 1 : 0) | (scope32 ? 0x2 : 0); // Use enum?
return true;
}