On 10/23/2016 05:31 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 10/22/16 08:52, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> 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 '<' ?");
>
>
Attached is the updated patch with those quotes fixed.
I have now put the << and < in correct quotes, but left the ?: in
the next two warnings unquoted:
"?: using integer constants in boolean context, "
"the expression will always evaluate to %<true%>"
I copied that style from the warning about omitted middle operand of
conditional expressions:
"the omitted middle operand in ?: will always be %<true%>, suggest
explicit "
"middle operand"
I think that could be explained because ?: is not really a keyword
like <<, and is just a shorter phrase than "conditional expression".
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Is it OK for trunk?
Thanks
Bernd.
patch-bool-context5.diff
c-family:
2016-10-23 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
* c-common.c (c_common_truthvalue_conversion): Warn for
multiplications in boolean context. Fix the quoting of '<<' and '<'
in the shift warning.
gcc:
2016-10-23 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
* doc/invoke.text (Wint-in-bool-context): Update documentation.
* value-prof.c (stringop_block_profile): Fix a warning.
testsuite:
2016-10-23 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
* c-c++-common/Wint-in-bool-context-3.c: New test.
OK.
Jeff
