rtrieu marked an inline comment as done. rtrieu added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/Sema/parentheses.c:156 + + (void)(x ^ b ? 1 : 2); // no warning, ^ is often used as logical xor + (void)(x || b ? 1 : 2); // no warning, logical operator ---------------- jfb wrote: > rtrieu wrote: > > jfb wrote: > > > rtrieu wrote: > > > > jfb wrote: > > > > > I don't understand why `^` is different. What do you mean by "often > > > > > used as a logical xor`? > > > > In C++, there's the bitwise operators |, &, and ^. And there's the > > > > logical operators || and &&. Since there's no ^^ for a logical-xor, > > > > many people will just use the bitwise-xor ^ instead. Since this isn't > > > > warning on logical operators, it makes sense to exclude the bitwise-xor > > > > that is often used as logical-xor. > > > So code is often buggy when it uses `|` and `&` as diagnosed by this > > > patch, but is rarely buggy when it uses `^`? > > That's correct. From my testing, &&, || and ^ all had low bug finding > > rates and didn't make sense to include into this warning while | and & had > > a high bug finding rate. > OK thanks for clarifying. Could you explain this instead of "logical xor"? It > seems useful to know when reading your code that in your experience `^` > wasn't a source of bugs as much as the others. I have added comments for this test and for the code where xor is excluded. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66043/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66043 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
