Thomas Koenig wrote:
the attached patch warns about comparisions for equality and inequality
of real and complex values if -Wcompare-reals is given. The new
compiler option is included in -Wall.
Regression-tested, tested with "make info" and "make dvi".
OK for trunk?
Thanks for the patch. It's okay, after fixing the nits below.
+ if (gfc_option.warn_compare_reals)
+ {
+ gfc_intrinsic_op op = e->value.op.op;
+
+ if ((op1->ts.type == BT_REAL || op1->ts.type == BT_COMPLEX)
+ && (op == INTRINSIC_EQ || op == INTRINSIC_EQ_OS
+ || op == INTRINSIC_NE || op == INTRINSIC_NE_OS))
+ {
+ bool equality;
+
+ equality = op == INTRINSIC_EQ || op == INTRINSIC_EQ_OS;
+
+ /* Type conversion has made sure that the types
+ of op1 and op2 agree. */
+ gfc_warning ("%s comparison for %s at %L",
+ equality ? "Equality" : "Inequality",
+ gfc_typename (&op1->ts), &op1->where);
Can you move up the comment before the "(op1->ts.type"? When reading the
patch, I stumbled over that, before reading 8 lines later that checking
op1 is sufficient.
Additionally, your gfc_warning is rather unfriendly to translators (try
yourself to translate it, taking into account that the "Equality" string
might be re-used elsewhere). I think it is better to have two separate
strings, one for equality and one for inequality.
Tobias
