From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct 18 05:01:26 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FC21065670
	for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com)
Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AFF8FC14
	for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.11.127.239] (unknown [12.228.211.90])
	by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B73D3F40F
	for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <4E9CAC1A.5040709@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110172158390.2807@gerinyyl.fvgr>
References: <20111017152548.GA66978@freebsd.org> <4E9CAC1A.5040709@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [toolchain] disable -Wtautological-compare for clang
X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain
	<freebsd-toolchain.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:01:26 -0000

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Matthias Andree wrote:
>> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't 
>> think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. 
>> actually it's always nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody 
>> changes the type to int and forgets to introduce such a check.
> If your code must be unclean in such a way that it uses deliberately 
> dead code "just in case someone breaks the semantics", can you not use 
> -Wno-tautological-compare in that situation?

It's not as straightforward, sadly, which is why I mentioned I am
on the fence somehow.

  if (TYPE_MIN <= var && var <= TYPE_MAX)

or

  if (var < TYPE_MIN || var > TYPE_MAX)

are not that uncommon, in well written application, and if TYPE_MIN
then evaluates to 0, we'll get a warning.

> Unless someone goes to paranoia mode and sprays unneeded checks like you
> suggest all over the code like an ugly graffity, all such warnings are
> worth investigating.  In code I've hand my eyes and/or hands on, the
> better part of these warnings were pointing to true bugs.

In my experience some were, while others were of the class above.

Gerald