On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Matt Beaumont-Gay <[email protected]> wrote: > A little belated bikeshed-painting... > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: >> Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td?rev=165283&r1=165282&r2=165283&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td Thu Oct 4 19:41:03 >> 2012 >> @@ -3863,6 +3863,11 @@ >> def note_logical_and_in_logical_or_silence : Note< >> "place parentheses around the '&&' expression to silence this warning">; >> >> +def warn_addition_in_bitshift : Warning< >> + "'%0' within '%1'">, InGroup<ShiftOpParentheses>; > > I have a hard time understanding what problem this warning is trying > to explain. Maybe we could phrase it like our other shift operator > precedence warning: > operator '?:' has lower precedence than '<<'; '<<' will be evaluated > first [-Werror,-Wparentheses]
Fair point, improved as suggested in r166296. (pity we can't reuse the text of a warning because it's associated with a particular flag) I got the wording from the '||'+'&&' and '|'+'&' warning above this one. Should we change these too? >> +def note_addition_in_bitshift_silence : Note< >> + "place parentheses around the '%0' expression to silence this warning">; >> + >> def warn_self_assignment : Warning< >> "explicitly assigning a variable of type %0 to itself">, >> InGroup<SelfAssignment>, DefaultIgnore; >> >> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp?rev=165283&r1=165282&r2=165283&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp Thu Oct 4 19:41:03 2012 >> @@ -8570,6 +8570,20 @@ >> } >> } >> >> +static void DiagnoseAdditionInShift(Sema &S, SourceLocation OpLoc, >> + Expr *SubExpr, StringRef shift) { >> + if (BinaryOperator *Bop = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(SubExpr)) { >> + if (Bop->getOpcode() == BO_Add || Bop->getOpcode() == BO_Sub) { > > Also, out of curiosity, why not warn on multiply/divide/mod? It's just what GCC supports. We could evaluate whether multiply/divide/mod are sufficiently error prone as to be worth diagnosing. - David _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
