Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:7428-7430 +def warn_bitwise_and_bool : Warning< + "bitwise and of boolean expressions; did you mean logical and?">, + InGroup<BoolOperationAnd>; ---------------- xbolva00 wrote: > Quuxplusone wrote: > > I suggest that the name and wording of this diagnostic should match > > `warn_logical_instead_of_bitwise`, currently `"use of logical '%0' with > > constant operand"`. So: > > ``` > > def warn_bitwise_instead_of_logical : Warning< > > "use of bitwise '%0' with boolean operand">, > > ``` > > This neatly sidesteps the problem of what to call the `&` operator: I was > > not thrilled with the phrase `bitwise and of`, but have no problem with > > `use of bitwise '&'`. > I see the point but then I will not be able to provide -Wbool-operation-and > flag to enable/disable this warning. > > For example I know that Google prefers a new flag for every new warning so > they dont have to disable eg. -Wbool-operation, but just this new warning > while there are working on fixes for new warnings. > > @hans what do you think? > > I don't understand your comment. My guess is that you didn't notice that `-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical` would still be a different flag from `-Wlogical-instead-of-bitwise`. I'm not suggesting putting them under the //same// flag; just making the newly added flag a little more consistent and (heh) logical, based on what's already there. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108003/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108003 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
