[Bug c/69993] New: Misleading wording for -Wmisleading-indentation

["dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69993

            Bug ID: 69993
           Summary: Misleading wording for -Wmisleading-indentation
           Product: gcc
           Version: 6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Reddit user "sysop073" observed here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/47pejg/gcc_6_wmisleadingindentation_vs_goto_fail/d0eonwd

that the wording of -Wmisleading-indentation is rather confusing:

> The way they split up the warning looks designed to trick you.
> sslKeyExchange.c:631:8: warning: statement is indented as if it were guarded by... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
>         goto fail;
>         ^~~~
> sslKeyExchange.c:629:4: note: ...this 'if' clause, but it is not
>     if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
>     ^~
> You read the first half and it sounds like goto fail; is guarding something. Why would it not be:
> sslKeyExchange.c:631:8: warning: statement is wrongly indented... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
>         goto fail;
>         ^~~~
> sslKeyExchange.c:629:4: note: ...as if it were guarded by this 'if' clause
>     if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
>     ^~

I agree that the current wording is suboptimal.

I think the wording would be much clearer if the wording of the "warning" only
spoke about the statement in question, and the "note"/inform should then talk
about the not-really-guarding guard.

I think my preferred wording would be:

sslKeyExchange.c:631:8: warning: statement is misleadingly indented...
[-Wmisleading-indentation]
        goto fail;
        ^~~~
sslKeyExchange.c:629:4: note: ...as if it were guarded by this 'if' clause, but
it is not
    if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
    ^~