smeenai added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149#911024, @rsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149#910936, @smeenai wrote: > > > I'm thinking you could account for all possible type sizes in the existing > > (enabled by default) warning, and have a different warning for possibly > > tautological comparisons. E.g. if a `long` is being compared against > > `INT_MAX`, you know that's only tautological on some platforms, so it > > should go under `-Wpossible-tautological-constant-compare` (which would > > only be enabled by `-Weverything` and not `-Wall` or `-Wextra`); > > `-Wtautological-constant-compare` should be reserved for definitely > > tautological cases. > > > This sounds like a very promising direction. (That is: if the types of the > values being compared are different, but are of the same size, then suppress > the warning or move it to a different warning group that's not part of > `-Wtautological-compare`.) That would also suppress warnings for cases like > 'ch > CHAR_MAX', when `ch` is a `char`, but we could detect and re-enable the > warning for such cases by, say, always warning if the constant side is an > integer literal. Yeah, the type comparison implementation was what I was thinking of originally, though I wasn't sure about the edge cases. When you say "always warning if the constant side is an integer literal", do you mean if it's a straight-up integer literal, or if it's an expression which evaluates to an integer literal at compile time? For example, would there be a difference if you were comparing to `numeric_limits<int>::max()` vs. `INT_MAX`? https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
