rtrieu marked an inline comment as done.
rtrieu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/parentheses.c:148
+
+ (void)(x | b ? 1 : 2); // expected-warning {{operator '?:' has lower
precedence than '|'}} expected-note 2{{place parentheses}}
+ (void)(x & b ? 1 : 2); // expected-warning {{operator '?:' has lower
precedence than '&'}} expected-note 2{{place parentheses}}
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> rtrieu wrote:
> > MaskRay wrote:
> > > I hope these `| ? :` `& ? :` warnings are disabled-by-default.
> > These new warnings reuse the existing parentheses warnings, which is
> > diag::warn_precedence_conditional. That is on by default, so this one as
> > written is also on by default..
> I agree that
>
> `cond1 ? 0xf0 : 0x10 | cond2 ? 0x5 : 0x2;` is confusing and justifies a
> warning. But **what is tested here is different**.
>
> That is why I created D65192, because such warnings are very annoying as
> enabled-by-default diagnostics.
>
> I think this change will make it even harder to remove some annoying
> -Wparentheses warnings..
I can add tests for the other case. This one was used because it was shorter
and easier to copy.
Would creating a parentheses subgroup (like -Wbitwise-conditional-parentheses),
duping the warning into it, and marking it DefaultIgnore be a better
alternative for you?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66043/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66043
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
