erik.pilkington added a comment. In D66856#1666616 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66856#1666616>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> The reflector discussion is still happening and there are issues with > ambiguities that we are pretty sure we want to correct. I've got a paper out > that touches on some of this: > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2420.pdf Nice, thanks for digging into this! ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:8123 +def warn_format_bool_as_character : Warning< + "format specifies a character but argument has boolean value">, + InGroup<Format>; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > How about: `using '%0' format specifier, but argument has boolean value` and > then pass in the character specifier used? Sure, copied that verbatim. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Sema/format-bool.c:26 +#ifdef PEDANTIC + // expected-warning@-2 {{format specifies type 'short' but the argument has type}} +#endif ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Just an FYI (not related to your patch): it seems that at least some people > think this should be diagnosed as something other than by > `-Wformat-pedantic`. Their thinking is that `-Wformat-pedantic` is for things > that are required to have a diagnostic according to the standard but are not > sufficiently interesting to warn about by default. This particular case is > not required to be warned on by the standard, so it's not really a "pedantic" > warning. It sounds like there may be interest in having `-Wformat-pedantic` > for that understanding of pedantic, and introduce something like > `-Wformat-type-mismatch` for these other cases where there is type confusion > but not sufficiently dangerous to warrant warning by default? That seems like a good idea to me, I agree that "pedantic" in the context of warnings means "technically incorrect according to the standard, but not really a big deal", which isn't really what -Wformat-pedantic is doing right now. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66856/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66856 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
