[cfe-dev] [RFC] Compiler warning -Wparentheses for code : while (c = *str++)

[Daniel Marjamäki]

Thanks!

>  In real code we've seen that this warning finds enough errors
> that burdening the programmer to be more explicit when they really want
> an assignment is worth it.

hmm.. I could put together a list with such warnings in real code.

so far I only looked at a few such warnings. All of them were FP so I thought the FP ratio was not very good.

Best regards,
Daniel Marjamäki

..................................................................................................................
Daniel Marjamäki Senior Engineer
Evidente ES East AB  Warfvinges väg 34  SE-112 51 Stockholm  Sweden

Mobile:                 +46 (0)709 12 42 62
E-mail:                 Daniel.Marjamaki at evidente.se

www.evidente.se

________________________________________
Från: Justin Bogner [justin at justinbogner.com] för Justin Bogner [mail at justinbogner.com]
Skickat: den 12 augusti 2015 08:37
Till: Daniel Marjamäki
Kopia: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Ämne: Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Compiler warning -Wparentheses for code : while (c = *str++)

Daniel Marjamäki <Daniel.Marjamaki at evidente.se> writes:
> Hello!
>
> This is a RFC.
>
> I wonder what you think about trying to avoid a compiler warning for
> such code:
>
>         while (c = *str++) {
>                 *p++ = (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z') ? (c - 'A' + 'a') : c;
>         }
>
> Output:
>
> a.c:3:11: warning: using the result of an assignment as a condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
>         while (c = *str++) {
>                ~~^~~~~~~~
> a.c:3:11: note: place parentheses around the assignment to silence this warning
>         while (c = *str++) {
>                  ^
>                (         )

This tells you what to do to avoid the warning, spell this like so:

  while ((c = *str++)) {
    *p++ = (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z') ? (c - 'A' + 'a') : c;
  }

> a.c:3:11: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an equality comparison
>         while (c = *str++) {
>                  ^
>                  ==
> 1 warning generated.
>
> I would personally recommend that it is avoided in while if there is
> just an assignment and rhs is a nonconstant expression.

The trade off here is between the programmer overhead of adding an extra
set of parentheses vs the likelihood of accidentally typing "=" when you
mean "==". In real code we've seen that this warning finds enough errors
that burdening the programmer to be more explicit when they really want
an assignment is worth it.

To illustrate why a side-effectful RHS isn't sufficient to turn off this
warning, consider:

  char end = lastline ? '\0' : '\n';
  while (end == *str++) { /* do something with *str */ }

This is a bit contrived, but it hints at the complexity of turning off
-Wparentheses for particular cases - it's both easier to get right and
easier to explain if we just say "put extra parens around assignments in
conditions to make it obvious that they're intentional".