On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:39 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The string literal to boolean conversion is a new warning. There was > > some discussion of where to put it, from literal-conversion or > > bool-conversion. I was moving it to its own flag so we can have the > > warning while we figure out which of these places would be best for > > it. > > Okay, as long as it doesn't stay there. And for next time, it's fine to > just let it sit in one or the other until the discussion is done, I think. This was largely my request to Richard. Essentially, -Wliteral-conversion fires a great deal, with a high false-positive rate. We're considering turning it on anyways, but I can imagine a lot of code may never be interested in turning that set of warnings on. However, -Wbool-conversion and this new warning Richard added were based on specific bug reports. We've found hundreds of bugs with these two warnings, and very few false-positives. I originally suggested just putting both of these under 'bool-conversion' even though one is converting from a bool to a pointer, and the other from a pointer to a bool. I would be happy with consolidating them into any flag name that seems appropriate and sufficiently descriptive. My only real goal is to keep the extremely high-value warnings available even when -Wliteral-conversion (much less the even more noisy variants) aren't feasible for a codebase.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
