aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:5609
+def warn_mul_in_bool_context : Warning<
+ "'*' in bool context, maybe you mean '&&'?">,
+ InGroup<IntInBoolContext>;
----------------
I would appreciate seeing some motivating examples for this case, because it
seems like the `&&` suggestion is misleading more often than it's helpful in
the current test cases.
Also, what is a "bool context"?
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:5625
+ "evaluate to 'true'">,
+ InGroup<IntInBoolContext>;
+
----------------
This one seems like it should be in the `TautologicalConstantCompare` group, no?
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:11099
+static void DiagnoseIntInBoolContext(Sema &S, Expr *E) {
+ E = E->IgnoreParenImpCasts();
----------------
`const Expr *E`?
================
Comment at: test/Sema/integer-overflow.c:37
// expected-warning@+1 2{{overflow in expression; result is 536870912 with
type 'int'}}
- overflow = 4608 * 1024 * 1024 ? 4608 * 1024 * 1024 : 0;
+ overflow = 4608 * 1024 * 1024 ? 4608 * 1024 * 1024 : 0; // expected-warning
{{'*' in bool context, maybe you mean '&&'?}}
----------------
I don't think the new diagnostic adds a lot of value here, though GCC does warn
on it similarly. Truthfully, the same goes for the other test cases in this
file.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63082/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63082
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
