On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
We shouldn't add new warning groups just for the sake of having more warning groups. I think the value argument here is weak, but maybe I'm missing something. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
