[PATCH 1/3] Refactor entry point to -Wmisleading-indentation

[Patrick Palka]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2015 11:31 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch refactors the entry point of -Wmisleading-indentation from:
>>>>
>>>>    void
>>>>    warn_for_misleading_indentation (location_t guard_loc,
>>>>                                     location_t body_loc,
>>>>                                     location_t next_stmt_loc,
>>>>                                     enum cpp_ttype next_tok_type,
>>>>                                     const char *guard_kind);
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>    struct token_indent_info
>>>>    {
>>>>      location_t location;
>>>>      cpp_ttype type;
>>>>      rid keyword;
>>>>    };
>>>>
>>>>    void
>>>>    warn_for_misleading_indentation (const token_indent_info &guard_tinfo,
>>>>                                     const token_indent_info &body_tinfo,
>>>>                                     const token_indent_info &next_tinfo);
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of this refactoring is to expose more information to the
>>>> -Wmisleading-indentation implementation to allow for more advanced
>>>> heuristics and for better coverage.
>>>>
>>>> (I decided to keep the usage of const references because nobody
>>>> seems to mind.  Also I added a new header file, c-indentation.h.)
>>>>
>>>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>>         * c-indentation.h (struct token_indent_info): Define.
>>>>         (get_token_indent_info): Define.
>>>>         (warn_for_misleading_information): Declare.
>>>>         * c-common.h (warn_for_misleading_information): Remove.
>>>>         * c-identation.c (warn_for_misleading_indentation):
>>>>         Change declaration to take three token_indent_infos.  Adjust
>>>>         accordingly.
>>>>         * c-identation.c (should_warn_for_misleading_indentation):
>>>>         Likewise.  Bail out early if the body is a compound statement.
>>>>         (guard_tinfo_to_string): Define.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/c/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>>         * c-parser.c (c_parser_if_body): Take token_indent_info
>>>>         argument. Call warn_for_misleading_indentation even when the
>>>>         body is a semicolon.  Extract token_indent_infos corresponding
>>>>         to the guard, body and next tokens.  Adjust call to
>>>>         warn_for_misleading_indentation accordingly.
>>>>         (c_parser_else_body): Likewise.
>>>>         (c_parser_if_statement): Likewise.
>>>>         (c_parser_while_statement): Likewise.
>>>>         (c_parser_for_statement): Likewise.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>>         * parser.c (cp_parser_selection_statement): Move handling of
>>>>         semicolon body to ...
>>>>         (cp_parser_implicitly_scoped_statement): .. here.  Call
>>>>         warn_for_misleading_indentation even when the body is a
>>>>         semicolon.  Extract token_indent_infos corresponding to the
>>>>         guard, body and next tokens.  Adjust call to
>>>>         warn_for_misleading_indentation accordingly.  Take
>>>>         token_indent_info argument.
>>>>         (cp_parser_already_scoped_statement): Likewise.
>>>>         (cp_parser_selection_statement, cp_parser_iteration_statement):
>>>>         Extract a token_indent_info corresponding to the guard token.
>>>
>>> The only question in my mind is bootstrap & regression testing.  From
>>> reading the thread for the earlier version of this patch I got the
>>> impression you had bootstrapped and regression tested earlier versions.
>>>
>>> If you could confirm that you've bootstrapped and regression tested this
>>> version it'd be appreciated.  You can do it on the individual patches or the
>>> set as a whole.
>>
>> I think I successfully bootstrapped + regtested this exact version but
>> I'm not sure.  I was going to do so again before committing anyway.
>> I will fire off a build tonight and confirm the results tomorrow.
>
> Bootstrap + regtest on x86_64-linux-gnu was successful with no new regressions.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>

Hi Jeff.  Sorry for the late reply.  I would like to commit this
series now (after another bootstrap + regtest cycle) to work on
further refinements to this warning.  You clearly approved the last
two out of three patches, but it is not clear whether you approved
this first patch.  Could you clarify your stance on this patch?
Thanks again for reviewing.