================
@@ -215,3 +215,10 @@ namespace PR20735 {
// fix-it:"{{.*}}":{[[@LINE-9]]:20-[[@LINE-9]]:20}:")"
}
}
+
+void consecutive_builtin_compare(int x, int y, int z) {
+ (void)(x < y < z); // expected-warning {{comparisons like 'X<=Y<=Z' don't
have their mathematical meaning}}
+ (void)(x < y > z); // expected-warning {{comparisons like 'X<=Y<=Z' don't
have their mathematical meaning}}
+ (void)(x < y <= z); // expected-warning {{comparisons like 'X<=Y<=Z' don't
have their mathematical meaning}}
+ (void)(x <= y > z); // expected-warning {{comparisons like 'X<=Y<=Z' don't
have their mathematical meaning}}
----------------
JOE1994 wrote:
(I'll refer to each of the 3 cases mentioned in the above comment as case1,
case2, and case 3)
I pushed a commit that adds 2 `no-warning` test lines for case1.
It's unlikely for one to write `((x < y) >= z)` and believe it to have
mathematical meaning of `(x < y) AND (y >= z)`.
I limited the scope of this PR to diagnosing consecutive "built-in" comparisons
(as per the PR title).
Thus, the current implementation does not diagnose case 2.
I don't have the capacity to further work on making clang diagnose case 2 but
not case 3.
I added a TODO note at the bottom of the test lines for now.
FYI, gcc doesn't diagnose any of case1, case2, or case 3.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92200
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
