vsapsai added a comment.

OK. Good to know you are still working on it.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687#1271880, @Higuoxing wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687#1266893, @vsapsai wrote:
>
> > Sorry about the delay. The change seems to be correct but `ninja 
> > check-clang` reveals the test "Misc/caret-diags-macros.c" is failing. Can 
> > you please look into that?
>
>
> Hi, It's because the expression is given in multiple lines and my 
> `SuggestParentheses` cannot give proper fix-it hint. But I could give proper 
> `ParenRange` in macros. Shall we reserve current `SuggestParentheses` and 
> just give Parenrange hit in macros ? I have no idea about this ...


Why is the expression on multiple lines in this case? I didn't check in 
debugger but the test case looks like you can place `)` between 
`BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR` and `;`. At least that's what I would expect as 
compiler user.

  llvm-project/clang/test/Misc/caret-diags-macros.c:125:38: warning: operator 
'?:' has lower precedence than '+'; '+' will be evaluated first
  int test4 = BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR+BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR;
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  llvm-project/clang/test/Misc/caret-diags-macros.c:124:39: note: expanded from 
macro 'BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR'
  #define BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR (2<3)?2:3
                                        ^
  llvm-project/clang/test/Misc/caret-diags-macros.c:125:38: note: place 
parentheses around the '+' expression to silence this warning
  llvm-project/clang/test/Misc/caret-diags-macros.c:124:39: note: expanded from 
macro 'BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR'
  #define BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR (2<3)?2:3
                                        ^
  llvm-project/clang/test/Misc/caret-diags-macros.c:125:38: note: place 
parentheses around the '?:' expression to evaluate it first
  int test4 = BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR+BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR;
                                       ^
                                       (
  llvm-project/clang/test/Misc/caret-diags-macros.c:124:39: note: expanded from 
macro 'BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR'
  #define BAD_CONDITIONAL_OPERATOR (2<3)?2:3
                                        ^


https://reviews.llvm.org/D47687



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to