On 09/19/2016 03:32 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 09/19/16 21:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/15/2016 03:19 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 09/14/16 20:11, Jason Merrill wrote:


Yes.  The reasoning I initially had was that it is completely
pointless to have something of the form "if (x ? 1 : 2)" or
"if (x ? 0 : 0)" because the result does not even depend on x
in this case.  But something like "if (x ? 4999 : 0)" looks
bogus but does at least not ignore x.

If the false-positives are becoming too much of a problem here,
then I should of course revert to the previous heuristic again.

I think we could have both, where the weaker form is part of -Wall and
people can explicitly select the stronger form.


Yes, agreed.  So here is what I would think will be the first version.

It can later be extended to cover the more pedantic cases which
will not be enabled by -Wall.

I would like to send a follow-up patch for the warning on
signed-integer shift left in boolean context, which I think
should also be good for Wall.
(I already had that feature in patch version 2 but that's meanwhile
outdated).


Bootstrap and reg-testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Is it OK for trunk?


Thanks
Bernd.


changelog-pr77434v3.txt


gcc:
2016-09-14  Bernd Edlinger  <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>

    PR c++/77434
    * doc/invoke.texi: Document -Wcond-in-bool-context.

    PR middle-end/77421
    * dwarf2out.c (output_loc_operands): Fix an assertion.

c-family:
2016-09-14  Bernd Edlinger  <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>

    PR c++/77434
    * c.opt (Wcond-in-bool-context): New warning.
    * c-common.c (c_common_truthvalue_conversion): Warn on integer
    constants in boolean context.

cp:
2016-09-14  Bernd Edlinger  <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>

    PR c++/77434
    * cvt.c (cp_convert_and_check): Suppress Wint-in-bool-context here.

testsuite:
2016-09-14  Bernd Edlinger  <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>

    PR c++/77434
    * c-c++-common/Wcond-in-bool-context.c: New test.


patch-pr77434v3.diff


Index: gcc/builtins.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/builtins.c    (revision 240135)
+++ gcc/builtins.c    (working copy)
@@ -7887,15 +7887,18 @@ fold_builtin_classify (location_t loc, tree
fndecl
         tree isinf_call = build_call_expr_loc (loc, isinf_fn, 1, arg);

         signbit_call = fold_build2_loc (loc, NE_EXPR, integer_type_node,
-                    signbit_call, integer_zero_node);
+                        signbit_call, integer_zero_node);
         isinf_call = fold_build2_loc (loc, NE_EXPR, integer_type_node,
-                      isinf_call, integer_zero_node);
+                      isinf_call, integer_zero_node);

-        tmp = fold_build3_loc (loc, COND_EXPR, integer_type_node,
signbit_call,
-                   integer_minus_one_node, integer_one_node);
         tmp = fold_build3_loc (loc, COND_EXPR, integer_type_node,
-                   isinf_call, tmp,
-                   integer_zero_node);
+                   signbit_call, integer_minus_one_node,
+                   integer_one_node);
+        /* Avoid a possible -Wint-in-bool-context warning in C.  */
+        tmp = fold_build2_loc (loc, PLUS_EXPR, integer_type_node, tmp,
+                   integer_zero_node);
+        tmp = fold_build3_loc (loc, COND_EXPR, integer_type_node,
+                   isinf_call, tmp, integer_zero_node);
       }

     return tmp;
This hunk is not mentioned in the ChangeLog and there's a good chance
this has or is going to change significantly.  I don't like the tmp+0
workaround either.  If there isn't an immediate need, can we let this
hunk slide and come back to it after the other changes from Tamar &
Wilco are wrapped up?


Yes that would be good.

I think this is OK with the builtins.c hunk dropped as long as exclusion
of that hunk doesn't trigger spurious warnings.


It does trigger a warning but it is usually masked by -Wsystem-headers,
so I initially missed it completely, but it comes quite often when
I build a recent glibc.  That does only happen with C, not C++.

If I drop that chunk then I must also drop that line

   if (__builtin_isinf_sign ((float)a/b)) /* { dg-bogus "boolean
context" } */

But I have to come back and silence the warning on that construct
in a follow-up patch.


If it is OK, knowing it is work in progress,
I could hold back the builtins part for now,
and commit what I have ?
Yea, that's fine.

I think Tamar & Wilco's work on builtin_classify_fptype is reasonably close, so it shouldn't be long before you can get back to those bits.
jeff

Reply via email to