https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92995
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is because detect_intervening_unindent disables the warning in that case.
The rationale for the function is given in the comment:
/* Determine if there is an unindent/outdent between
BODY_EXPLOC and NEXT_STMT_EXPLOC, to ensure that we don't
issue a warning for cases like the following:
(1) Preprocessor logic
if (flagA)
foo ();
^ BODY_EXPLOC
#if SOME_CONDITION_THAT_DOES_NOT_HOLD
if (flagB)
#endif
bar ();
^ NEXT_STMT_EXPLOC
"bar ();" is visually aligned below "foo ();" and
is (as far as the parser sees) the next token, but
this isn't misleading to a human reader.
(2) Empty macro with bad indentation
In the following, the
"if (i > 0)"
is poorly indented, and ought to be on the same column as
"engine_ref_debug(e, 0, -1)"
However, it is not misleadingly indented, due to the presence
of that macro.
#define engine_ref_debug(X, Y, Z)
if (locked)
i = foo (0);
else
i = foo (1);
engine_ref_debug(e, 0, -1)
if (i > 0)
return 1;
Return true if such an unindent/outdent is detected. */
and because the function wants to detect all kinds of non-indented things, it
works with the source line text rather than tokens etc., so I guess it would be
pretty hard to find out it should ignore some specific lines because there is a
multi-line string literal.
CCing author.
