* [Bug c/7543] Suggest new warning message for gcc
[not found] <20020808090600.7543.trt@sas.com>
@ 2003-10-30 7:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-20 15:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-30 7:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7543
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-30 06:58 -------
Note the patch still needs a changelog and testcases and maybe a copyright assignment.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/7543] Suggest new warning message for gcc
[not found] <20020808090600.7543.trt@sas.com>
2003-10-30 7:04 ` [Bug c/7543] Suggest new warning message for gcc pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-20 15:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-20 15:31 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-20 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-20 15:20 -------
*** Bug 9944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |levon at movementarian dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7543
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/7543] Suggest new warning message for gcc
[not found] <20020808090600.7543.trt@sas.com>
2003-10-30 7:04 ` [Bug c/7543] Suggest new warning message for gcc pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-20 15:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-20 15:31 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-01 14:14 ` [Bug c/7543] no warning for always-false "if (!a & 0x4)" bitwise and on boolean value trt at acm dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-07-20 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-07-20 15:31 -------
PR 9944 has another tentative patch for this bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7543
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/7543] no warning for always-false "if (!a & 0x4)" bitwise and on boolean value
[not found] <20020808090600.7543.trt@sas.com>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-20 15:31 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-01 14:14 ` trt at acm dot org
2004-10-01 14:25 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-10-01 15:28 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: trt at acm dot org @ 2004-10-01 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From trt at acm dot org 2004-10-01 14:14 -------
Can we just close this 'wonfix'? There are so many simpler/effective warning
message improvements that are available to gcc. (e.g. the special case
of boolean & non-boolean-constant can be caught with a three-line addition
to fold() in fold-const.c) This elaborate patch would be way way down any list.
Thanks. (By the way, if there a gcc person interested in such a list, please
contact me.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7543
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/7543] no warning for always-false "if (!a & 0x4)" bitwise and on boolean value
[not found] <20020808090600.7543.trt@sas.com>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-01 14:14 ` [Bug c/7543] no warning for always-false "if (!a & 0x4)" bitwise and on boolean value trt at acm dot org
@ 2004-10-01 14:25 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-10-01 15:28 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-10-01 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-01 14:25 -------
As the example you show in your patch demonstrates, there are even cases inside
gcc that would be triggered by this patch. I believe it would therefore be useful.
Also, jsm's response was not dismissive of the patch at all, though we would indeed
have to have a Changelog entry as well as testcases.
Joseph, would you mind commenting on the usefulness of an approach as mentioned
in the patch linked from comment #1?
W.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jsm at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7543
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/7543] no warning for always-false "if (!a & 0x4)" bitwise and on boolean value
[not found] <20020808090600.7543.trt@sas.com>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-01 14:25 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-10-01 15:28 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk @ 2004-10-01 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-01 15:28 -------
Subject: Re: no warning for always-false "if (!a & 0x4)" bitwise
and on boolean value
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> Joseph, would you mind commenting on the usefulness of an approach as mentioned
> in the patch linked from comment #1?
It seems reasonable to me - and as a -Wparentheses warning it avoids the
question of whether the fold-const.c warnings really should be mandatory.
The patch would need updating for the removal of C_EXP_ORIGINAL_CODE and
its replacement by c_expr structures. The patch should cause the
original_code be set appropriately (in the parser for now) where this
patch requires it. gcc.dg/Wparentheses-[2-8].c give examples of testing
-Wparentheses warnings: test all relevant combinations of operators, both
parenthesised and non-parenthesised, with constant and non-constant
operands, and make sure each case does or does not warn as appropriate.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7543
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread