On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a very useful warning, thanks. > > One issue I have with it is that it's disabled > by Wno-tautological-compare. From the warning name that makes sense – > but Wtautological-compare used to be a fairly harmless warning, so we > (chromium) disabled it for a bunch of third-party libraries. When > Wtautological-undefined-compare arrived, we fixed all instances of this in > our code and updated our compiler to a clang that optimizes away > comparisons of references with NULL (since we had fixed all of these > comparisons, we thought!) > > I recently realized that we didn't see Wtautological-undefined-compare > warnings for all the third-party libraries that we're building with > Wno-tautological-compare. > > Do you think Wtautological-undefined-compare should be in its own warning > group (and maybe have a different name to make that clear), so that folks > who disabled Wtautological-compare still get this warning? The reasoning is > that this warning is much more serious that what Wtautological-compare used > to warn about. > I don't really understand why. There is no actual undefined behavior here, just a comparison that can never, ever be go the other way. It seems almost exactly as severe as comparing an unsigned number for >= 0?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
