On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Attempting to bootstrap gcc with -Wmisleading-indentation enabled I ran
into a few failures where the indentation, although bad, was arguably
not misleading.
In regrename.c:scan_rtx_address:
1308 case PRE_MODIFY:
1309 /* If the target doesn't claim to handle autoinc, this must be
1310 something special, like a stack push. Kill this chain. */
1311 if (!AUTO_INC_DEC)
1312 action = mark_all_read;
1313
1314 break;
^ this is indented at the same level as the "action =" code,
but clearly isn't guarded by the if () at line 1311.
In gcc/fortran/io.c:gfc_match_open:
1997 {
1998 static const char *delim[] = { "APOSTROPHE", "QUOTE",
"NONE", NULL };
1999
2000 if (!is_char_type ("DELIM", open->delim))
2001 goto cleanup;
2002
2003 if (!compare_to_allowed_values ("DELIM", delim, NULL, NULL,
2004
open->delim->value.character.string,
2005 "OPEN", warn))
^ this is indented with the "goto cleanup;" due to
lines 2000-2001 not being indented enough, but
line 2003 clearly isn't guarded by the
"if (!is_char_type" conditional.
In gcc/function.c:locate_and_pad_parm:
4118 locate->slot_offset.constant = -initial_offset_ptr->constant;
4119 if (initial_offset_ptr->var)
4120 locate->slot_offset.var = size_binop (MINUS_EXPR, ssize_int
(0),
4121 initial_offset_ptr->var);
4122
4123 {
4124 tree s2 = sizetree;
4125 if (where_pad != none
4126 && (!tree_fits_uhwi_p (sizetree)
4127 || (tree_to_uhwi (sizetree) * BITS_PER_UNIT) %
round_boundary))
4128 s2 = round_up (s2, round_boundary / BITS_PER_UNIT);
4129 SUB_PARM_SIZE (locate->slot_offset, s2);
4130 }
^ this block is not guarded by the
"if (initial_offset_ptr->var)"
and the whitespace line (4122) is likely to make a
human reader of the code read it that way also.
In each case, a blank line separated the guarded code from followup code
that wasn't guarded, and to my eyes, the blank line makes the meaning of
the badly-indented code sufficiently clear that it seems unjustified to
issue a -Wmisleading-indentation warning.
I would argue that each of these does represent misleading indentation
and that the warning is warranted for each. Perhaps they aren't as bad
as prior cases, but I'd still consider them mis-leading.
Even more so if you have to work in codebases with differing styles
(particularly where the open curly goes).
Jeff
