From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 55333 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2015 21:40:33 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 55317 invoked by uid 89); 21 Oct 2015 21:40:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:40:31 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Zp17U-0004NB-JA from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:40:28 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:40:27 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Zp17R-00016G-MV; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:40:25 +0000 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:57:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Bernd Schmidt CC: Steve Ellcey , Mike Stump , , , Subject: Re: [Patch, MIPS] Frame header optimization for MIPS (part 2) In-Reply-To: <562804FE.1030103@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <5626C664.7030006@redhat.com> <863CD8C6-74F0-4D29-A48C-9B22B8F0E2BE@comcast.net> <5627DD3E.40306@redhat.com> <1445455491.2922.23.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <562804FE.1030103@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg02186.txt.bz2 On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/21/2015 11:29 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > > > > Hm, how about a separate warning that wasn't part of -Wall but could > > > still be used by GCC or other products that wanted to enforce a 'no > > > unnecessary parenthesis' coding style. Not that I'm volunteering. > > > > What's "unnecessary"? It's normal in GNU style to add extra parentheses > > when their contents go over multiple lines, to help editors get > > indentation right.... > > But not for things on a single line, like the ones I quoted: Indeed. Such a hypothetical warning would need to distinguish these cases (as well as the ones where parentheses are formally redundant but their absence is diagnosed by -Wparentheses) - the GNU rule is *not* to avoid any parentheses that don't change precedence. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com