This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [v3] Suppress warning

From: Falk Hueffner <hueffner at informatik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,"'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:20:09 +0200
Subject: Re: [v3] Suppress warning
References: <4125D314.1020904@suse.de><871xi2p014.fsf@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de><4125D794.4010802@suse.de><m3ekm2aqqm.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><41260381.4070805@suse.de> <412605C2.2010008@codesourcery.com>

Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> writes:

> IMHO,
> 	while (a <<= b)
> deserves a warning, as much as
> 	while (a = b)
> the former could be a typo for <=, just as the latter be one for ==

Well, it could, but does this really happen in practise? I'd guess
I've myself confused = and == or seen others do it about 50 times or
so, but zero times for <<= vs. <=. IMHO we should not introduce
warnings unless there's empirical evidence people really make these
mistakes.

-- 
	Falk

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [v3] Suppress warning
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

References:
- [v3] Suppress warning
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] Suppress warning
  - From: Falk Hueffner
- Re: [v3] Suppress warning
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] Suppress warning
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: [v3] Suppress warning
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] Suppress warning
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]