lebedev.ri added a subscriber: thakis. lebedev.ri added a comment. That is my diagnostic, so i guess this is the time to reply :)
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149#910825, @mclow.lists wrote: > I dislike this change fairly strongly. > I would much rather pursue a clang-based solution (since clang is being > unhelpful here) > Don't know if we can get one, though. As i see it, there are several options: 1. Disable that warning in `libc++` cmakelists. Be careful though, i think it might disable the entire 'tautological comparison' diagnostic family. 2. Use preprocessor pragmas to disable the diagnostic for the selected code, https://reviews.llvm.org/rL315882. Brittle, ugly, effective, has the least impact. <- Best? 3. In `-Wtautological-constant-compare`, ignore any comparisons that compare with `std::numeric_limits`. Not a fan of this solution. <- Worst? 4. Disable that diagnostic by default in clang. Also, not really a fan of this solution. I implemented it because it would have caught a real bug in my code in rather shorter time, see mail <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20171009/206427.html>. 5. The essential problem, i *think* is much like the problem with unreachable code diagnostic, CppCon 2017: Titus Winters “Hands-On With Abseil” <https://youtu.be/xu7q8dGvuwk?t=16m5s>. The check does not know/care whether the comparison is tautological only with the current Fundamental type sizes, or always. Perhaps this is the proper heading? 6. ??? https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits