From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9681 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2009 13:21:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 9670 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2009 13:21:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f224.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f224.google.com) (209.85.218.224) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:21:43 +0000 Received: by bwz24 with SMTP id 24so1061545bwz.8 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.71.68 with SMTP id g4mr2038510bkj.135.1240579300176; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?82.6.108.62? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm974589fkt.26.2009.04.24.06.21.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49F1BF6F.3000809@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:39:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Mitchell CC: Dave Korn , Jason Merrill , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= , Gcc Patch List , Nathan Sidwell , Janis Johnson Subject: Re: [C/C++] PR 13358 long long and C++ do not mix well References: <6c33472e0808281543w5d464fe6r1fa5e584797ac46c@mail.gmail.com> <6c33472e0808281700m457e1f2euf6a0da108dd5b84a@mail.gmail.com> <6c33472e0810221705u1286ac46g166ec57677fe0f4c@mail.gmail.com> <6c33472e0904101212j69a8aa48hb12369c0aeb55242@mail.gmail.com> <6c33472e0904190416g1bff083j5a2a6e73640364f7@mail.gmail.com> <49EBED41.6070609@codesourcery.com> <6c33472e0904200138n73a3a3c6l779fc89d0fcff39f@mail.gmail.com> <49EC9148.9070806@codesourcery.com> <6c33472e0904200917q221b7e76hd4aeedfe164b8f4e@mail.gmail.com> <49ECA229.4020208@codesourcery.com> <49ECB286.3010309@redhat.com> <49F03209.3080907@gmail.com> <49F0FB46.8020202@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <49F0FB46.8020202@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg01912.txt.bz2 Mark Mitchell wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: > >> /tmp/string-null-ctor.C:9: warning: null argument where non-null required >> (argument 1) >> >> Would either of you care to comment on what would be a suitable pattern to test? > > I'd just say "null". Or maybe "null pointer" (see below). > > As a nit-pick on the message, and without having much context, Ah, if I'd given you more context it would have been clear that I'm testing an existing warning, not writing a new one! > As for the test question, to me "null" is the key word here. Any good > warning message for this situation will say "null", and any message > that's talking about "null" is probably saying something useful. > > My two cents, Your reasoning makes perfect sense to me. I was originally thinking that it would also be worth testing the "1" to see that it got the argument number right, but that would be more sensible in a test /of/ the warning, rather than a test /for/ the warning. cheers, DaveK