hazohelet added a comment. As you point out, enhancement may be more accurate than bug fix. There are rare cases where enabling a warning for missing parentheses in `constexpr` logical expressions can be helpful, I think. For example, consider the following code:
constexpr A = ...; constexpr B = ...; constexpr C = ...; static_assert(!(A && B || C)); In this case, the static assertion will only be successful if `(A && B || C)` evaluates to `false`, which is equivalent to the following combinations of values for `A`, `B`, and `C`: (A, B, C) = (T, F, F) (F, T, F) (F, F, F) Note that `T` means `true` and `F` means `false`. Here, `C` is always `false`, so `A && B || C` matches the case of `a && b || 0`. Thus, the warning is not issued before this patch. If the programmer is not careful and assumes that `(A && B || C)` is equivalent to `(A && (B || C))`, then they expect the values of `A`, `B`, and `C` to also include the following combinations: (A, B, C) = (F, T, T) (F, F, T) This would require the programmer to consider additional, unnecessary combinations after the successful static assertion. Enabling a warning for missing parentheses in this scenario could help prevent the programmer from making this mistake. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D140860/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D140860 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
