On Sep 26, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> 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.

So let me turn this around.  False-to-pointer and string-literal-to-bool 
conversions are both clearly under the rubric of -Wliteral-conversion.  I can 
understand not wanting to turn on a category with massive false positives, but, 
well, massive false positives are a fixable problem.  Why don't we just put the 
noisy cases into their own categories, not part of -Wliteral-conversion, and 
then move them back in if/when we fix their problems?

John.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to