xbolva00 marked an inline comment as done. xbolva00 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td:485 +// For compatibility with GCC; -Wtype-limits = -Wtautological-constant-in-range-compare +def TypeLimits : DiagGroup<"type-limits", [TautologicalInRangeCompare]>; def TautologicalOutOfRangeCompare : DiagGroup<"tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare">; ---------------- lebedev.ri wrote: > xbolva00 wrote: > > lebedev.ri wrote: > > > Is gcc's `-Wtype-limits` *just* > > > `-Wtautological-constant-in-range-compare`, or is something else should > > > be there? > > -Wtautological-constant-in-range-compare is enough to diagnose 99% cases > > from: > > > > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/41d6b10e96a1de98e90a7c0378437c3255814b16/gcc/testsuite/g%2B%2B.dg/warn/Wtype-limits.C > > > > One missed case is: > > int test (int x) > > { > > if ((long long)x <= 0x123456789ABCLL) > > return 1; > > else > > return 0; > > } > > > > Tried -Weverything, no help. We miss this case. I will open PR for that. > > > > But anyway, this missed case should not block this patch. > > -Wtautological-constant-in-range-compare is enough to diagnose 99% cases > > from: > > That doesn't really answer the question. > I'm sure that *adding* `-Wtautological-constant-in-range-compare` helps. > But what about the other way around? > Does passing `-Wno-type-limits` silence *all* the expected diags in that file? Yes, silences it correctly. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58841/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58841 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
