[Bug c/66220] -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Tue Jun 2 18:45:50 2015 New Revision: 224041 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224041root=gccview=rev Log: PR c/66220: Fix false positive from -Wmisleading-indentation gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: PR c/66220: * c-indentation.c (should_warn_for_misleading_indentation): Use expand_location rather than expand_location_to_spelling_point. Don't warn if the guarding statement is more indented than the next/body stmts. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c/66220: * c-c++-common/Wmisleading-indentation.c (fn_35): New. (fn_36): New. Modified: trunk/gcc/c-family/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/c-family/c-indentation.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wmisleading-indentation.c
[Bug c/66220] -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220 David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #4) Patch from #c3 works fine for our codebase, I couldn't spot any false positives anymore. Thanks. Should be fixed as of r224041.
[Bug c/66220] -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220 --- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl sirl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch from #c3 works fine for our codebase, I couldn't spot any false positives anymore.
[Bug c/66220] -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2015-05-20 CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org, ||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |6.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Confirmed.
[Bug c/66220] -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220 David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch posted as: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01858.html
[Bug c/66220] -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks.
I ran into a variant of this whilst testing -Wmisleading-indentation on the
linux kernel, where a preprocessor macro conditionalizes the if/else; here's
the test case I reduced it to:
/* This variant of KR-style formatting (in the presence of conditional
compilation) shouldn't lead to a warning.
Based on false positive seen with r223098 when compiling
linux-4.0.3:arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_glue.c:aesni_init. */
void
fn_36 (void)
{
#if 1 /* e.g. some configuration variable. */
if (flagA) {
foo(0);
foo(1);
foo(2);
} else
#endif
{
foo(3);
foo(4);
foo(5);
}
foo(6); /* We shouldn't warn here. */
}
I have a fix for this, by requiring that the visual column of the guard
(else) be = that of the stmts, which works for all of the testcases
(including the new ones I posted as
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01846.html ), apart from fn_15:
#define FOR_EACH(VAR, START, STOP) for ((VAR) = (START); (VAR) (STOP);
(VAR++)) /* { dg-message 36: ...this 'for' clause, but it is not } */
void fn_15 (void)
{
int i;
FOR_EACH (i, 0, 10) /* { dg-message 3: in expansion of macro } */
foo (i);
bar (i, i); /* { dg-warning statement is indented as if it were guarded
by... } */
}
#undef FOR_EACH
which then fails to report the warning due to it using the location of the
for in the defn of macro FOR_EACH.
Fixing that will require some reworking on how we handle macro expansions.
