On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:47, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
The noisy warning in question is floating-point-literal-to-int, which fires on a lot of code like "int kNumMicrosPerSecond = 1e6;". How would you feel about moving that warning under a more specific flag? And, to get slightly off-topic, how would you feel about adding code to that warning to silence it in "safe" cases for literals written in exponential form? -Matt _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
