rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
The "false negatives" in the current behaviour are the result of an intentional
decision to avoid false positives for unsequenced operations that cannot
actually both happen as part of the same evaluation (because both are
conditional on different and mutually-exclusive conditions), such as the false
positive we now get in the tests. I think it's reasonable to revisit that
decision, though; the new false positive cases do not realistically seem likely
to occur in real code whereas the false negatives do.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/warn-unsequenced.c:79
- (xs[7] && ++a) * (!xs[7] && ++a); // ok
+ (xs[7] && ++a) * (!xs[7] && ++a); // expected-warning {{multiple unsequenced
modifications to 'a'}}
----------------
Please at least add a FIXME for this false positive.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57747/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57747
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
