https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69993
Bug ID: 69993
Summary: Misleading wording for -Wmisleading-indentation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Reddit user "sysop073" observed here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/47pejg/gcc_6_wmisleadingindentation_vs_goto_fail/d0eonwd
that the wording of -Wmisleading-indentation is rather confusing:
> The way they split up the warning looks designed to trick you.
> sslKeyExchange.c:631:8: warning: statement is indented as if it were guarded
> by... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
> goto fail;
> ^~~~
> sslKeyExchange.c:629:4: note: ...this 'if' clause, but it is not
> if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
> ^~
> You read the first half and it sounds like goto fail; is guarding something.
> Why would it not be:
> sslKeyExchange.c:631:8: warning: statement is wrongly indented...
> [-Wmisleading-indentation]
> goto fail;
> ^~~~
> sslKeyExchange.c:629:4: note: ...as if it were guarded by this 'if' clause
> if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
> ^~
I agree that the current wording is suboptimal.
I think the wording would be much clearer if the wording of the "warning" only
spoke about the statement in question, and the "note"/inform should then talk
about the not-really-guarding guard.
I think my preferred wording would be:
sslKeyExchange.c:631:8: warning: statement is misleadingly indented...
[-Wmisleading-indentation]
goto fail;
^~~~
sslKeyExchange.c:629:4: note: ...as if it were guarded by this 'if' clause, but
it is not
if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
^~
