No problem. I missed the initial discussion, do I was just looking for clarification.
Thanks David, Chandler, Nico, etc. On Jan 16, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chad, > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Nico, >> I get a warning with the following test case. >> >> int foo(int a, int b, int c) { >> int rval = 0; >> if (a != b) >> if (b == c) { >> rval = 0; >> } else { >> rval = 1; >> } >> return rval; >> } >> >> mcrosier$ clang -O3 t.c -Wall -c -o /dev/null >> t.c:6:11: warning: add explicit braces to avoid dangling else >> [-Wdangling-else] >> } else { >> ^ >> 1 warning generated. >> >> Is this expected behavior? This code seems rather explicit to me. > > This was discussed when I proposed the warning: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20111219/050474.html > > Richard and Eli both preferred the warning to fire in this case, > Chandler was against it. > > I'm happy with adding any tweak we agree on (say "don't warn if the > else starts on the same line the previous if starts" or something like > that). > > How often do you run into this in practice? > > Nico _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
