On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 15:50 -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > Currently the -Wmisleading-indentation warning doesn't do any > analysis > when the guarded statement or the statement after it is produced by a > macro, as the mentioned PR illustrates. This means that we warn for: > > if (flag) > foo (); > bar (); > > and yet we don't warn for: > > #define BAR bar > if (flag) > foo (); > BAR (); > > which seems like a surprising limitation.
IIRC we were trying to keep things simple in the initial implementation. > This patch extends the -Wmisleading-indentation implementation to > support analyzing such statements and their tokens. This is done in > the > "natural" way by resolving the location of each of the three tokens > to > the token's macro expansion point. (Additionally, if the tokens all > resolve to the same macro expansion point then we instead use their > locations within the macro definition.) When these resolved > locations > are all different, then we can proceed with applying the warning > heuristics to them as if no macros were involved. Thanks for working on this. I've only looked at the patch briefly, but so far it looks reasonable. Can you post some examples of what the output looks like for some of these cases? The diagnostics code has some logic for printing how macros are unwound, so I'm wondering what we actually print for these cases, and if it looks intelligble to an end-user. Dave
