On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:13:28PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 04:14 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >This patch is meant to be applied on top of the "Wparentheses overhaul"
> >patch.
> >
> >I really think that warning about the dangling else problem isn't appropriate
> >as a part of the -Wparentheses warning, which I think should only deal with
> >stuff like precedence of operators, i.e. things where ()'s are missing and
> >not
> >{}'s.
> >
> >This new warning is, however, a subset of -Wparentheses.
> >
> >Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk or should I stash it
> >for the next stage1?
>
> I think it's not appropriate for now. I'm ambivalent about the concept; my
> (vague) recollection is that putting it under -Wparentheses was Kenner's
> idea, and it's been there so long that I'm not sure there's really a point
> to changing this. In a sense it is a very similar problem as operator
> precedence.
Well, even with the change it is still included with -Wparentheses, just
it is a suboption with more specific name that can be enabled/disabled
independently from -Wparentheses if needed.
Though, of course, it can wait for GCC 7.
Jakub
