erik.pilkington added a comment. In D63856#1561160 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63856#1561160>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D63856#1561132 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63856#1561132>, @erik.pilkington > wrote: > > > In D63856#1561112 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63856#1561112>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > In D63856#1560213 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63856#1560213>, > > > @erik.pilkington wrote: > > > > > > > In D63856#1560180 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63856#1560180>, @rjmccall > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This only applies to relational operators, right? I'm a little > > > > > uncomfortable with calling this "tautological" since it's not like > > > > > it's *undefined behavior* to have `(BOOL) 2`, it's just *unwise*. > > > > > But as long as we aren't warning about reasonable idioms that are > > > > > intended to handle unfortunate situations — like other code that > > > > > might have left a non-`{0,1}` value in the `BOOL` — I think this is > > > > > fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the party line is that it is undefined behaviour (in some > > > > sense), since UBSan will happily crash if you try to load a non-boolean > > > > value from a BOOL. > > > > > > > > > What? Since when? > > > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D27607 > > > Interesting; I'm not sure I find that convincing. Probably the least > convincing part is where it links to its own behavioral documentation as > justification for doing what it does. But okay, I guess we do this. Hmm, I guess you could say that they were being a little... tautological. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63856/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63856 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
