On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > -Wbool-compare-tautological > >> > Comparisons involving a boolean and an expression evaluating to 1, 0, > >> > true, > >> > or false such that the comparison always evaluate to true or false. > >> > Also added to -Wtautological-compare group > >> > High true positive rate. > >> > Not previously caught by -Wtautological-compare > >> > >> Please just fix DiagnoseOutOfRangeComparison to do the right thing. > >> > >> > -Wbool-compare-tautological-out-of-range > >> > Comparisons of a boolean and >1 or negative values. > >> > Also added to -Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare group > >> > High true positive rate. > >> > Previously, only compares with values >1 were caught. > >> > (x == 5) currently caught > >> > (x == -1) not currently caught > >> > >> Same. > >> > >> -Eli > > > > > > What do you think of the idea of separating out warnings on bool > comparisons > > into a sub group? > > I'm not exactly opposed... but why? The tautological compare warning > is on by default anyway. > I think that finer control over warnings is a good thing. And that this warning would fit in nicely if a new -Wbool-compare is created. > > (Either way, please fix DiagnoseOutOfRangeComparison instead of adding > new code.) > Yes, I am looking at it now. > > -Eli >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
