On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 02:32:01PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 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?
I support that change, and -Wparentheses will still enable this, it just
gives more fine-grained control and be in line with what clang does.
Bernd, how much are you against this change?
Jakub
