5 ms·

This is especially true for warnings about && and || precedence. When you use those two operators in one expression without parentheses, IIRC both gcc and clang

This is especially true for warnings about && and || precedence. When you use those two operators in one expression without parentheses, IIRC both gcc and clang complain, but I once wanted to compile some software that thought it was a good idea to -Werror all the code and don't use parens around &&. Fun times fixing all the zillion makefiles that mentioned Werror. (Yay autoconf?)

pklausler 9y ago
That's the one warning that I like to disable. I hate having to write superfluous parentheses around conjunctions. I mean, come on. It's just as lame as requiring them around multiplications would be.
- mjevans 9y ago
  Even if /you/ know the order of operations, making them explicit with the parentheses provides clarity and allows future maintainers to quickly (and correctly) deduce the structure of the logical construct. I generally only leave them out in short simple to follow 'normal math' order of operations.
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    Sure. The rule you suggest might be good coding practice --- but people can disagree, and their omitting the extra braces doesn't make the code wrong. An existing correct program shouldn't one day stop building because someone added a warning that enforces your preferred operating precedence marking style.
    - zaphar 9y ago
      That is because the compiler authors conflated warnings with a linter. Warnings should be used to indicate basically just two things. 1. Dead/Duplicated Code. 2. Probably Broken Code. Anything else is stylistic and the realm of opinion. Even if it's informed opinion enforcing it belongs in a linter.
      - quotemstr 9y ago
        To be fair, a compiler contains all the infrastructure you'd want in a linter. I don't mind compilers having lint-like warnings: I just want them to very clear about the differences between these warnings and warnings that reflect functional problems with high probability.
        evincarofautumn 9y ago
        What I’d like is for compiler authors to just admit this and include a lint mode. There’s some practical and political difficulty with adding new warnings to a widely used compiler, partly because you don’t want to generate too many new warnings for existing code, partly because people compile with -Werror and upgrading the compiler will break (well, sprain) their build. Those difficulties would be easy to skirt by just tossing new warnings into lint mode and promoting them to compiler warnings if they turn out to be very useful in practice.
        zaphar 9y ago
        I agree. A -Wlint would be a great way to keep the distinction but reuse the compilers infrastructure.

pklausler 9y ago

That's the one warning that I like to disable. I hate having to write superfluous parentheses around conjunctions. I mean, come on. It's just as lame as requiring them around multiplications would be.

mjevans 9y ago
Even if /you/ know the order of operations, making them explicit with the parentheses provides clarity and allows future maintainers to quickly (and correctly) deduce the structure of the logical construct. I generally only leave them out in short simple to follow 'normal math' order of operations.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  Sure. The rule you suggest might be good coding practice --- but people can disagree, and their omitting the extra braces doesn't make the code wrong. An existing correct program shouldn't one day stop building because someone added a warning that enforces your preferred operating precedence marking style.
  - zaphar 9y ago
    That is because the compiler authors conflated warnings with a linter. Warnings should be used to indicate basically just two things. 1. Dead/Duplicated Code. 2. Probably Broken Code. Anything else is stylistic and the realm of opinion. Even if it's informed opinion enforcing it belongs in a linter.
    - quotemstr 9y ago
      To be fair, a compiler contains all the infrastructure you'd want in a linter. I don't mind compilers having lint-like warnings: I just want them to very clear about the differences between these warnings and warnings that reflect functional problems with high probability.
      - evincarofautumn 9y ago
        What I’d like is for compiler authors to just admit this and include a lint mode. There’s some practical and political difficulty with adding new warnings to a widely used compiler, partly because you don’t want to generate too many new warnings for existing code, partly because people compile with -Werror and upgrading the compiler will break (well, sprain) their build. Those difficulties would be easy to skirt by just tossing new warnings into lint mode and promoting them to compiler warnings if they turn out to be very useful in practice.
        zaphar 9y ago
        I agree. A -Wlint would be a great way to keep the distinction but reuse the compilers infrastructure.