From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 905933857805; Wed,  6 Apr 2022 12:12:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 905933857805
From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/105164] new warning in clang, missing in gcc:
 -Wbitwise-instead-of-logical
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:12:12 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: assigned_to bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-105164-4-bsh080IyWm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105164-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105164-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:12:12 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105164

Martin Li=C5=A1ka <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org          |unassigned at gcc d=
ot gnu.org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW

--- Comment #3 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well, I doubt the warning is much useful.

There are situations where we can't use short-circuit evaluation:

gcc/c-family/c-attribs.cc:2384:
  else if (TREE_CODE (decl) =3D=3D FUNCTION_DECL
           && (((curalign =3D DECL_ALIGN (decl)) > bitalign)
               | ((lastalign =3D DECL_ALIGN (last_decl)) > bitalign)))

or we want to quickly and flags of a struct:

  gcc_checking_assert (!IDENTIFIER_KIND_BIT_2 (id)
                       & !IDENTIFIER_KIND_BIT_1 (id)
                       & !IDENTIFIER_KIND_BIT_0 (id));

Note a different code is generated for situations like:

return foo() && bar() && baz ();

and

return foo() & bar() & baz ();

So I don't think we should change the code based on the warnings.=