From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-379030-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25652 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2012 01:32:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 25638 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2012 01:32:41 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_CX
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:32:26 +0000
From: "ian at airs dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/50012] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] C++ front end misses -Wsign-compare warnings when extraneous parentheses are present
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:32:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ian at airs dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.4
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-50012-4-CUysGtqlbG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50012-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50012-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00705.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50012

--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com> 2012-01-07 01:31:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 26260
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26260
Possible patch

I did not like the first approach because I think that checking c_dialect_cxx
in the generic C family code is quite ugly.  But clearly the current approach
is problematic, and it's actually easy to implement Richi's suggestion.  This
patch is a possible approach, but it doesn't work as is.  It issues a warning
for

  if (TYPE_QUALS (type) == memfn_quals)

in cp;typeck.c.  Here memfn_quals is signed int but TYPE_QUALS, an expression
of enum values winds up unsigned.