On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:24:18PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > And I think GCC is wrong to wan here. The point of the Wempty-body
> > warning is to catch things like:
> >
> > if(a);
> > return 2;
> > return 3;
> >
> > However,
> >
> > if(a)
> > ;
> > return 2;
>
> In the olden days, we didn’t have enough information to do the warnings
> well. clang did better, cause it always had the information necessary. I
> think if (); should warn, and if () ; should not, neither should if () \n
> ;, if we have the information.
I think we had discussions on this topic, the important thing is that we
don't want to generate different warnings based on whether -save-temps has
been used, there could be just comment in between ) and ; etc.
Jakub
