Re: [PATCHv3] Add a warning for suspicious use of conditional expressions in boolean context

[Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>]

... resent, because message apparently bounced.

On 09/14/16 21:22, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 09/14/16 20:11, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes.  The reasoning I initially had was that it is completely
>>> pointless to have something of the form "if (x ? 1 : 2)" or
>>> "if (x ? 0 : 0)" because the result does not even depend on x
>>> in this case.  But something like "if (x ? 4999 : 0)" looks
>>> bogus but does at least not ignore x.
>>>
>>> If the false-positives are becoming too much of a problem here,
>>> then I should of course revert to the previous heuristic again.
>>
>> I think we could have both, where the weaker form is part of -Wall and
>> people can explicitly select the stronger form.
>>
>
>
> Yes, agreed.  So here is what I would think will be the first version.
>
> It can later be extended to cover the more pedantic cases which
> will not be enabled by -Wall.
>
> I would like to send a follow-up patch for the warning on
> signed-integer shift left in boolean context, which I think
> should also be good for Wall.
> (I already had that feature in patch version 2 but that's meanwhile
> outdated).
>
>
> Bootstrap on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and reg-testing not yet completed.
> Is it OK for trunk when reg-testing finished?
>
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.