On 2016.10.19 at 14:13 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/18/2016 12:14 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > On 10/18/16 19:05, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> > > > > >> this restricts the -Wint-in-bool-context warning to signed shifts, > > > > >> to reduce the number of false positives Markus reported yesterday. > > > > > > > > This patch seems to be missing testcases (that warned before the patch > > > > and don't warn after it). > > > > > > Yes of course. > > > > New patch, this time with a test case, compiled from the linux sample. > > > > Bootstrapped and reg-tested as usual. > > Is it OK for trunk? > > > > > > Bernd. > > > > > > patch-bool-context4.diff > > > > > > c-family: > > 2016-10-17 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> > > > > * c-common.c (c_common_truthvalue_conversion): Warn only for signed > > integer shift ops in boolean context. > > > > testsuite: > > 2016-10-17 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> > > > > * c-c++-common/Wint-in-bool-context-2.c: New test. > Comment please in the code indicating why we're restricting this to signed > shifts. I'm not entirely sure I agree with avoiding the warning for this > case, but I'm not up for fighting about it. So OK after adding the comment.
Thanks for the commit. But I think the comment is wrong: + /* We will only warn on unsigned shifts here, because the majority of ^^ This should be »signed«. -- Markus