[auto-pr] #156: [Coding Guideline]: Subset Guideline for CERT C, INT34-C: Do not shift an expression by a negative number of bits or by greater than or equal to the number of bits that exist in the operand

[scrc-cg-pr-from-issue]

This PR was automatically generated from issue #156.

Authored by: @felix91gr

Closes #156.

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for scrc-coding-guidelines failed.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	724f698
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/scrc-coding-guidelines/deploys/68f6a6409dc727000721dbd7

[PLeVasseur]

@felix91gr -- could you add the new tags you're using in another PR?

Note that this fails:

3:49:45 PM: /opt/build/repo/src/coding-guidelines/expressions.rst:334: WARNING: Need could not be created: Tags {'maintainability', 'portability', 'surprising-behavior'} not in 'needs_tags'. [needs.create_need]

[felix91gr]

@PLeVasseur ohh! I see. The Form for creating a New Guideline Issue didn't mention that new tags needed to be added before using them. That's a bit of Contributor Experience we could improve in the Form

I'll be adding the new tags right away :)

[felix91gr]

GEH. The FLS spec file got us again! Hahahah. Okay, brb, will open a PR to update it.

[felix91gr]

@x0rw I'll need your help again QwQ

It seems like the table in the original issue (same for #181's original issue) isn't being picked up quite how sphinx would want it. Do you know what I should do?

The table looks like this:

  | **Compilation Mode** | **`0 <= M < N`** | **`M < 0`**         |     **`N <= M`**    |
  |:--------------------:|:----------------:|:---------------------:|:-------------------:|
  | Debug                | Shifts normally  | Panics              | Panics              |
  | Release              | Shifts normally  | Shifts by `M mod N` | Shifts by `M mod N` |

[felix91gr]

I've fixed the table manually.

There's a typo that CI complains about; #206 fixes it

[PLeVasseur]

Good to see this working with the manual table.

Content-wise this is good.

There's a couple of formatting snags I pointed out.

[PLeVasseur]

I think there may be some missing braces here depending on what was intended.

One possibility: you could back the indentation up to the same level as this line for line 576 if the intent was to have the upper bit be stand-alone from the bottom part. That'd then mean the lower part should also be outdented to the same level of indentation.

[PLeVasseur]

Same comment as above applies down here too.

[PLeVasseur]

Opened #212 to track to resolution so that we can get this build to pass.