mgrabovsky added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13643#266926, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I would spend some time digging into how GCC handles those cases, and use > that as a baseline that we can then improve upon. I like the fact that GCC > basically says "use parens to clarify your intent", as that solves all of the > cases regarding equality and inequality. > > I would imagine type == type == bool should behave the same as bool == bool > == bool; it can be valid code that just needs parens to clarify intent. As > for C90 behavior, I'm not too worried about what we do there. I'm back. The warning is emitted in `gcc/c-family/c-common.c` L11488–11503; GCC only does this for what LLVM calls 'relational' operators (i.e., comparisons except == and !=) and for integral types. http://reviews.llvm.org/D13643 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
