lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462#922826, @rjmccall wrote:
> I don't speak for the entire project, but I'm not sure I'm interested in the > diagnostic you're actually offering to contribute here. It may produce a > warning on your specific test case, but I think it's really much too rigid > and will lead to massive false positives. I sketched the basics of a design > that I think I could accept; if you don't want to implement it, that's your > right, but that doesn't make me more likely to accept what you're willing to > implement. Just to reiterate that we are talking about the same thing here: - https://reviews.llvm.org/D38101 is already merged. `-Wtautological-constant-compare` is here. - There are cases when it warns for some target platform, but not the other, as complained in https://reviews.llvm.org/D39149, and post-review mails for https://reviews.llvm.org/D38101 - So far it seems all the cases reduce to #include <limits> #include <cstdint> int main() { using T1 = long; using T2 = int; T1 r; if (r < std::numeric_limits<T2>::min()) {} if (r > std::numeric_limits<T2>::max()) {} } - *This* differential (https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462) would find such cases, and issue them under different diagnostic, thus reducing the "false-positive" (it is an open question whether they are actual false-positives or not) rate of `-Wtautological-constant-compare`. Are you suggesting me to drop this, and implement some other huge new diagnostic that may catch such cases before `-Wtautological-constant-compare`, thus preventing `-Wtautological-constant-compare` from triggering on that completely? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
