Quuxplusone added a comment.
Two more high-level comments from me, and then I'll try to butt out.
Q1. I don't understand what `field-` is doing in the name of some diagnostics.
Is there a situation where `x = x;` is "less/more of an error" just because `x`
is a {data member, lambda capture, structured binding} versus not? Why should
the "plain old variable" case be separately toggleable? (This question
pre-dates Roman's proposed patch AFAICT. I think the answer is that
self-assignment specifically //of a data member// specifically //in a
constructor// is considered "more of an error" because it's likely to be a very
particular kind of typo-bug. I doubt this answer is quite strong enough to
justify multiple warning options, though.)
Q2. I don't understand why `x &= x` (and now `x /= x`, thanks) should be
treated as "more of an error" than `x & x` (and now `x / x`), or for that
matter `x == x`. The sin here is not "self-assignment" per se; it's
"over-complicating a tautological mathematical operation." I admit I haven't
thought about it as much as you folks, but the more I think about it, the more
I think the only consistent thing for Clang to do would be to back off from
warning about anything beyond plain old `x = x`, and leave *all* the
mathematical-tautology cases to checkers like clang-tidy and PVS-Studio.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
