Re: [PATCH] Implement warning for wrong use of ||/&&

["Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>]

On 12/02/07, Dirk Mueller <dmueller@suse.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13. February 2007 00:20, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> > No, please, don't do this. Walways-true warnings have nothing to do
> > with this (the name is wrong wrong wrong, this is the same mistake
> > that was done with Wconversion, but worse because this time the
> > description of Walways-true is also wrong, so please let's not repeat
> > it again).
>
> Well, the description of -Walways-true is certainly suboptimal, yes, because
> it references to an example that certainly does not trigger
> under -Walways-true. However, I think it is the one that comes closest to the
> spirit of it. If you can suggest a new name, I'm perfectly fine with adding
> yet another warning option for this one. I was just saying that it is low
> false-positive and therefore imho doesn't hurt to be in -Wall.

The description of Walways-true is: Warn about comparisons which are
always true such as testing if unsigned values are greater than or
equal to zero.

Walways-true was introduced to warn for (and it only does this so far):

bool func(void);
[...]
if (func) { return x;} /* warning */

suboptimal is ... uhm ... well, ok, let's say suboptimal then. ;-)

> > PS: I think there are already warnings for wrong usage of || and &&
> > somewhere. If you don't want to bother, I would like the patch to be
> > hold until I can look them up.
>
> Sure, please have a look. The only thing that comes to my mind
> is -Wparentheses warning about expressions which include || and && without
> explicit precedence.

Thanks. I will have a look at this as soon as I have time.

Cheers,

Manuel.