dexonsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687#1126074, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687#1126032, @Higuoxing wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687#1125926, @rnk wrote: > > > > > @dexonsmith is there someone from Apple who can comment on rdar://8678458 > > > and the merits of disabling this warning in macros? I strongly suspect > > > the original report was dealing with code like `assert(x || y && > > > "str");`, if so we can go forward with this. > > > > > > @chandlerc I know you've hit this behavior difference vs. GCC before. Any > > > thoughts on the proposed change? > > > > > > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687#1125964, @dexonsmith wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687#1125926, @rnk wrote: > > > > > > > @dexonsmith is there someone from Apple who can comment on > > > > rdar://8678458 and the merits of disabling this warning in macros? I > > > > strongly suspect the original report was dealing with code like > > > > `assert(x || y && "str");`, if so we can go forward with this. > > > > > > > > > There were two commits with this radar: r119537 and r119540. The main > > > motivation was a deeply nested macro that when "inlined" included the > > > moral equivalent of `#define DOUBLE_OP(OP1, OP2, X, Y, Z) (X OP1 Y OP2 > > > Z)`. There was terrible note spew when the warning fired in this case, > > > and the use case for the macro made the warning un-actionable. We > > > decided to suppress the warning entirely: > > > > > > > As a general comment, the warning seems to be useless for macros; I'll > > > > follow the example of warn_logical_instead_of_bitwise which doesn't > > > > trigger for macros and I'll make the warning not warn for macros. > > > > > > Hi, Thank you, > > > > I noticed that `warn_logical_instead_of_bitwise ` will also skip > > parentheses checking in macros... well, this patch seems not so > > necessary... both ok for me ... depends on all of you :-) > > > At worst, we can issue this warning in a new `-Wparentheses-in-macros` > subgroup, which, if apple so insists, could be off-by-default. > That would less worse than just completely silencing it for the entire world. I’d be fine with strengthening the existing warning as long as there is an actionable fix-it. I suspect if you suppress it when the relevant expression is constructed from multiple macro arguments that will be good enough. https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
