On 10/22/16 08:52, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 10/22/16 04:17, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 10/21/2016 04:37 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> The quoting in the diagnostic should be %<&&%>, not '&&'.
>>
>> Presumably same for '*' (i.e., %<*%>).
>>
>> But I would actually suggest a somewhat more formal phrasing than
>> "better use xxx here" such as "suggest %<&&%> instead" or something
>> akin to what's already in place elsewhere in gcc.pot.
>>
>
> Aehm, yes. That would be better then:
>
>
> Index: c-common.c
> ===
> --- c-common.c(revision 241400)
> +++ c-common.c(working copy)
> @@ -3327,6 +3327,11 @@
> return c_common_truthvalue_conversion (location,
> TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
>
> +case MULT_EXPR:
> + warning_at (EXPR_LOCATION (expr), OPT_Wint_in_bool_context,
> + "%<*%> in boolean context, suggest %<&&%> instead");
> + break;
> +
> case LSHIFT_EXPR:
>/* We will only warn on signed shifts here, because the majority of
> false positive warnings happen in code where unsigned arithmetic
>
>
> I assume then I should adjust the warning a few lines below as well:
>
> warning_at (EXPR_LOCATION (expr), OPT_Wint_in_bool_context,
> "<< in boolean context, did you mean '<' ?");
>
>
Attached is the updated patch with those quotes fixed.
I have now put the << and < in correct quotes, but left the ?: in
the next two warnings unquoted:
"?: using integer constants in boolean context, "
"the expression will always evaluate to %"
I copied that style from the warning about omitted middle operand of
conditional expressions:
"the omitted middle operand in ?: will always be %, suggest
explicit "
"middle operand"
I think that could be explained because ?: is not really a keyword
like <<, and is just a shorter phrase than "conditional expression".
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Is it OK for trunk?
Thanks
Bernd.
c-family:
2016-10-23 Bernd Edlinger
* c-common.c (c_common_truthvalue_conversion): Warn for
multiplications in boolean context. Fix the quoting of '<<' and '<'
in the shift warning.
gcc:
2016-10-23 Bernd Edlinger
* doc/invoke.text (Wint-in-bool-context): Update documentation.
* value-prof.c (stringop_block_profile): Fix a warning.
testsuite:
2016-10-23 Bernd Edlinger
* c-c++-common/Wint-in-bool-context-3.c: New test.
Index: gcc/c-family/c-common.c
===
--- gcc/c-family/c-common.c (revision 241437)
+++ gcc/c-family/c-common.c (working copy)
@@ -3327,6 +3327,11 @@ c_common_truthvalue_conversion (location_t locatio
return c_common_truthvalue_conversion (location,
TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
+case MULT_EXPR:
+ warning_at (EXPR_LOCATION (expr), OPT_Wint_in_bool_context,
+ "%<*%> in boolean context, suggest %<&&%> instead");
+ break;
+
case LSHIFT_EXPR:
/* We will only warn on signed shifts here, because the majority of
false positive warnings happen in code where unsigned arithmetic
@@ -3336,7 +3341,7 @@ c_common_truthvalue_conversion (location_t locatio
if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (expr)) == INTEGER_TYPE
&& !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (expr)))
warning_at (EXPR_LOCATION (expr), OPT_Wint_in_bool_context,
- "<< in boolean context, did you mean '<' ?");
+ "%<<<%> in boolean context, did you mean %<<%> ?");
break;
case COND_EXPR:
Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
===
--- gcc/doc/invoke.texi (revision 241437)
+++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -6169,8 +6169,9 @@ of the C++ standard.
@opindex Wno-int-in-bool-context
Warn for suspicious use of integer values where boolean values are expected,
such as conditional expressions (?:) using non-boolean integer constants in
-boolean context, like @code{if (a <= b ? 2 : 3)}. Or left shifting in
-boolean context, like @code{for (a = 0; 1 << a; a++);}.
+boolean context, like @code{if (a <= b ? 2 : 3)}. Or left shifting of signed
+integers in boolean context, like @code{for (a = 0; 1 << a; a++);}. Likewise
+for all kinds of multiplications regardless of the data type.
This warning is enabled by @option{-Wall}.
@item -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast
Index: gcc/value-prof.c
===
--- gcc/value-prof.c (revision 241437)
+++ gcc/value-prof.c (working copy)
@@ -1878,12 +1878,12 @@ stringop_block_profile (gimple *stmt, unsigned int
else
{
gcov_type count;
- int alignment;
+ unsigned int alignment;
count = histogram->hvalue.counters[0];
alignment = 1;
while (!(count & alignment)
- && (alignment * 2 * BITS_PER_UNIT))
+ && (alignment <= UINT_MAX / 2 / BITS_PER_UNIT))
alignment <<= 1;
*expected_align = alignment * BITS_PER_UNIT;
gimple_remove_hist
