On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > We've had to turn off -Wtautological-compare due to the frustratingly > high rate of occurrence, and too high of a false-positive rate for us > to clean up all the code for. However, some of the fine grained pieces > Richard is teasing out here will be significantly easier for us to > roll out to our users, and will help incrementally attack the problem > of the larger warning.
Okay, that's fine. But it needed to be said. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
