hvdijk added a comment.
It's bad enough that this warns for
#define A 2
#define B 0
int f() { return A ^ B; }
where as far as the users of A are concerned, A is just some arbitrary value,
it's just random chance it happens to be two and there is no chance of it being
misinterpreted as exponentiation, but it's much worse that this cannot be
worked around by changing the definition of A to 0x2, the only way to suppress
the warning with a hexadecimal constant is by explicitly using that constant in
the use, i.e. by changing the function to int f() { return 0x2 ^ B; }, which is
very much inappropriate when the users of A are not supposed to care about
which specific value it has.
I'd like to see this changed so that at least the #define A 0x2 case no longer
triggers the warning, but ideally I'd like to see no warning for this example
in its current state either. I see in the test case that that warning is
intentional, but I'm not seeing from the previous discussion whether this case
was based on real world programmer errors or not. Do you recall? If it was,
then fair enough, I'll propose to leave that as it is.
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
