rjmccall added a comment. I'm not sure you really need to put these in their own warning sub-group just because they're user-defined operators. That's especially true because it appears we already have divisions in the warning group based on the form of the l-value; we don't want this to go combinatorial.
================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:12087 + case BO_AndAssign: + case BO_OrAssign: + DiagnoseSelfAssignment(S, LHS, RHS, OpLoc, /*IsBuiltin=*/false); ---------------- Quuxplusone wrote: > I understand why `x &= x` and `x |= x` are mathematically special for the > built-in types, but surely `x -= x` and `x ^= x` and `x /= x` are just as > likely to indicate programmer error. I would be happy if Clang either took > the philosophical stance "We will diagnose `x = x` but uniformly //never// `x > op= x`," or else took the pragmatic stance "We will diagnose any `x op= x` or > `x op x` that seems likely to be a programming bug." This "middle way" of > warning only for `&=` and `|=` is bothersome to me. I think "we want to diagnose anything that seems likely to be a programming bug" is already our policy here. It's inevitable that we'll overlook examples of that. I agree that we should apply this warning to at least -=, ^=, and /=. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
