lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41512#963743, @dim wrote:
> Actually, having thought about it a little more, if the warning is "rather > broken", or even "completely broken", depending on one's point of view, then > maybe it is better not have it under `-Wextra` either? In it's current form, there has been zero false-positives. All the complaints are because it is finding an **actual** issues in the people's code, and people don't feel like fixing the code because in some other case (data model) the issue would not be present. Of course, everyone is welcomed to please do prove me wrong, and report some actual false-positives that are not data-model-dependant. > E.g. somebody has to ask for the warning specifically, using > `-Wtautological-constant-compare`, or use `-Weverything`? > > I ask this, because in FreeBSD we have traditionally been using `-W`, which > is (again, historically) an alias for `-Wextra`. We now still have to > explicitly use `-Wno-tautological-constant-compare` everywhere. :-( What @aaron.ballman said in the mail. No one ever will enable it then. And since it is not actually broken in the first place, i'm a *bit* hesitant to do that. Though i totally understand the desire to not have bogus warnings, and so far the clang/clang-analyzer/clang-tidy is the best at that :) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D41512 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
