aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D66397#1635715 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397#1635715>, @xbolva00 wrote:
> I agree what @tkanis suggested and be silent if RHS is macro as real world
> code shows it. Opinions?
>
> @jfb @aaron.ballman
I suspect we can come up with examples where the macro on either lhs or rhs is
sensible and other examples where its senseless. The existing test cases
already have:
res = TWO ^ 8; // expected-warning {{result of 'TWO ^ 8' is 10; did you mean
'1 << 8' (256)?}}
// CHECK: fix-it:"{{.*}}":{[[@LINE-1]]:9-[[@LINE-1]]:16}:"1 << 8"
// expected-note@-2 {{replace expression with '0x2 ^ 8' to silence this
warning}}
res = 2 ^ TEN; // expected-warning {{result of '2 ^ TEN' is 8; did you mean
'1 << TEN' (1024)?}}
// CHECK: fix-it:"{{.*}}":{[[@LINE-1]]:9-[[@LINE-1]]:16}:"1 << TEN"
// expected-note@-2 {{replace expression with '0x2 ^ TEN' to silence this
warning}}
showing that we expect to warn when macros are involved. If we decide that
macros should silence the warning, I would expect any use of a macro in the
expression to silence it, not just a RHS macro.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66397
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
