Ping for the C changes. Thanks Bernd.
On 05/03/17 15:14, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger > <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote: >> On 05/01/17 17:54, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bernd Edlinger >>> <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote: >>>> On 04/28/17 17:29, Martin Sebor wrote: >>>>> On 04/28/2017 08:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you want me to change the %qT format strings to %T ? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, with the surrounding %< and %> the nested directives should >>>>> use the unquoted forms, otherwise the printer would end up quoting >>>>> both the whole expression and the type operand. >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, to help avoid this mistake, I think this might be something >>>>> for GCC -Wformat to warn on and the pretty-printer to detect (and >>>>> ICE on). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, now I understand. That's pretty advanced. >>>> >>>> Here is the modified patch with correct quoting of the expression. >>>> >>>> Bootstrap and reg-testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. >>> >>>> * cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): Implement the -Wsizeof_pointer_div warning. >>> >>> I think this warning belongs in cp_build_binary_op rather than cp_fold. >>> >> >> Done, as suggested. > > The pattern in that function is to treat all *_DIV_EXPR the same; I > don't think we need to break that pattern with this patch. So please > move the new code after the other DIV case labels. With that the C++ > changes are OK. > > Jason > On 05/03/17 15:14, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger > <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote: >> On 05/01/17 17:54, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bernd Edlinger >>> <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote: >>>> On 04/28/17 17:29, Martin Sebor wrote: >>>>> On 04/28/2017 08:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you want me to change the %qT format strings to %T ? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, with the surrounding %< and %> the nested directives should >>>>> use the unquoted forms, otherwise the printer would end up quoting >>>>> both the whole expression and the type operand. >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, to help avoid this mistake, I think this might be something >>>>> for GCC -Wformat to warn on and the pretty-printer to detect (and >>>>> ICE on). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, now I understand. That's pretty advanced. >>>> >>>> Here is the modified patch with correct quoting of the expression. >>>> >>>> Bootstrap and reg-testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. >>> >>>> * cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): Implement the -Wsizeof_pointer_div warning. >>> >>> I think this warning belongs in cp_build_binary_op rather than cp_fold. >>> >> >> Done, as suggested. > > The pattern in that function is to treat all *_DIV_EXPR the same; I > don't think we need to break that pattern with this patch. So please > move the new code after the other DIV case labels. With that the C++ > changes are OK. > > Jason >
