[rocqua]

The point is very specifically cases where X is a decimal literal (not an expression such as 1 << x, or a hex number).

Things that resolve to this don't trigger the warning, and it is a compile time warning.

And then specifically looking at 2^X and 10^X occurring in source code.

[raxxorrax]

I would agree with the suggestion then. It can happen that you just write it out like that and the compiler should maybe inform me. But why limit it to 2^ and 10^ and not say literal^literal should always produce a warning? Any common or valid usages that I am missing here?

[rocqua]

Certainly, I'd say if either side is a hex or octal literal, it might be someone intentionally bit-twideling.

As for limiting the base, that is a more fluid matter. I guess you want to avoid warnings for very large numbers. Because those are more likely legitimate.

[NotPaidToPost]

> But why limit it to 2^ and 10^ and not say literal^literal should always produce a warning?

You're suggesting that using the C language as specified and intended should produce a warning... That makes no sense.