Re: PATCH RFC: -Wstrict-overflow, take 2

[Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>]

Hello Ian, all, 

* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 03:51:26AM CET:
> Here is a new version of my -Wstrict-overflow patch.  This
> incorporates all the comments made on the first version.

A small nit, with "pedantic user" glasses on: in the documentation
addition, it isn't totally clear that each higher warning level adds
warnings, as opposed to, say, simply outputs a different set of
warnings, unrelated to the previous lower level.  In the description
of the patch, the word "additionally" makes this clear: 

> -Wstrict-overflow=2 additionally warns about cases where a conditional
> expression is folded to a constant.  A typical example would be
> (abs (x) >= 0), which will be folded to 1 (this optimization will yield
> an unexpected result if x == INT_MIN).
[...] 

vs. 

> +@item -Wstrict-overflow=2
> +Warn about other cases where a comparison is simplified to a constant.
> +For example: @code{abs (x) >= 0}.  This can only be simplified when
> +@option{-fstrict-overflow} is in effect, because @code{abs (INT_MIN)}
> +overflows to @code{INT_MIN}, which is less than zero.

Either "Also, ", "Additionally, ", or alternatively change the intro: 

> +actually a problem.  To help focus on important issues, several
> +warning levels are defined.

to something like this:
... several warning levels with increasing amount of warning cases
are defined. 

Cheers,
Ralf