On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:16:12PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:13:28PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 04/13/2016 04:14 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >This patch is meant to be applied on top of the "Wparentheses overhaul"
> > >patch.
> > >
> > >I really think that warning about the dangling else problem isn't
> > >appropriate
> > >as a part of the -Wparentheses warning, which I think should only deal with
> > >stuff like precedence of operators, i.e. things where ()'s are missing and
> > >not
> > >{}'s.
> > >
> > >This new warning is, however, a subset of -Wparentheses.
> > >
> > >Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk or should I stash it
> > >for the next stage1?
> >
> > I think it's not appropriate for now. I'm ambivalent about the concept; my
> > (vague) recollection is that putting it under -Wparentheses was Kenner's
> > idea, and it's been there so long that I'm not sure there's really a point
> > to changing this. In a sense it is a very similar problem as operator
> > precedence.
>
> Well, even with the change it is still included with -Wparentheses, just
> it is a suboption with more specific name that can be enabled/disabled
> independently from -Wparentheses if needed.
> Though, of course, it can wait for GCC 7.
So how do y'all feel about this patch now that we're in stage1?
Marek
