On 10/22/16 04:17, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/21/2016 04:37 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> The quoting in the diagnostic should be %<&&%>, not '&&'.
>
> Presumably same for '*' (i.e., %<*%>).
>
> But I would actually suggest a somewhat more formal phrasing than
> "better use xxx here" such as "suggest %<&&%> instead" or something
> akin to what's already in place elsewhere in gcc.pot.
>
Aehm, yes. That would be better then:
Index: c-common.c
===================================================================
--- c-common.c (revision 241400)
+++ c-common.c (working copy)
@@ -3327,6 +3327,11 @@
return c_common_truthvalue_conversion (location,
TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
+ case MULT_EXPR:
+ warning_at (EXPR_LOCATION (expr), OPT_Wint_in_bool_context,
+ "%<*%> in boolean context, suggest %<&&%> instead");
+ break;
+
case LSHIFT_EXPR:
/* We will only warn on signed shifts here, because the majority of
false positive warnings happen in code where unsigned arithmetic
I assume then I should adjust the warning a few lines below as well:
warning_at (EXPR_LOCATION (expr), OPT_Wint_in_bool_context,
"<< in boolean context, did you mean '<' ?");
Bernd.
