aaron.ballman added a comment. In D3976#3721421 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D3976#3721421>, @gpakosz wrote:
> Hello, > > As of today, `-Wcomma` is not really documented: > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wcomma > >> The current whitelisted expressions are increments, decrements, assignments, >> compound assignments, overloaded versions of these operators, **and void >> returning functions** FWIW, none of our diagnostics get documentation beyond what you see there (it's auto-generated from the diagnostic definition file). > About `void` returning functions, the following example > <https://godbolt.org/z/Wa8qxKv8j> emits `-Wcomma`: > > void foo() > { > > } > > int bar(int i) > { > return i; > } > > int main(int argc, char* argv[]) > { > if (foo(), bar(argc)) > return 0; > > return -1; > } > > > > <source>:13:12: warning: possible misuse of comma operator here [-Wcomma] > if (foo(), bar(argc)) > ^ > <source>:13:7: note: cast expression to void to silence warning > if (foo(), bar(argc)) > ^~~~~ > (void)( ) > 1 warning generated. > > Should I open a bug? I think opening a bug is appropriate, good catch! Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D3976/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D3976 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
