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
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 phras
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
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 alre
The quoting in the diagnostic should be %<&&%>, not '&&'.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Hi!
This patch extends -Wint-in-bool-context to warn for multiplications if
used in boolean context. This is rarely useful, and where used, could
be easily replaced with && for instance. I think that multiplications in
boolean context should be warned about, regardless of the used
data type.
Thi
