xbolva00 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:7428-7430 +def warn_bitwise_and_bool : Warning< + "bitwise and of boolean expressions; did you mean logical and?">, + InGroup<BoolOperationAnd>; ---------------- Quuxplusone wrote: > I suggest that the name and wording of this diagnostic should match > `warn_logical_instead_of_bitwise`, currently `"use of logical '%0' with > constant operand"`. So: > ``` > def warn_bitwise_instead_of_logical : Warning< > "use of bitwise '%0' with boolean operand">, > ``` > This neatly sidesteps the problem of what to call the `&` operator: I was not > thrilled with the phrase `bitwise and of`, but have no problem with `use of > bitwise '&'`. I see the point but then I will not be able to provide -Wbool-operation-and flag to enable/disable this warning. For example I know that Google prefers a new flag for every new warning so they dont have to disable eg. -Wbool-operation, but just this new warning while there are working on fixes for new warnings. @hans what do you think? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108003/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108003 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
