On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Matt Beaumont-Gay wrote: > 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?
Your quoting style is broken; please use something that divides responses properly. > 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? I think we should definitely not be warning for conversions that preserve values exactly. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
