Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Hans Wennborg be207b3c74 Silence ?: precendence warning when parenthesis are present.
Fixes PR10898. The warning should be silent when there are parenthesis
around the condition expression.

llvm-svn: 139492
2011-09-12 12:07:30 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 4352b0b876 Fix a crash when a pointer-to-member function is called in the condition
expression of '?:'. Add a test case for this pattern, and also test the
code that led to the crash in a "working" case as well.

llvm-svn: 133523
2011-06-21 17:22:09 +00:00
Chandler Carruth f8e06c96ca Make the presentation of the warnings on 'x + y ? 1 : 0' a bit more
pretty. In particular this makes it much easier for me to read messages
such as:

  x.cc:42: ?: has lower ...

Where I'm inclined to associate the third ':' with a missing column
number, but in fact column numbers have been turned off. Similar
punctuation collisions happened elsewhere as well.

llvm-svn: 133121
2011-06-16 01:05:12 +00:00
Hans Wennborg de2e67e546 Handle overloaded operators in ?: precedence warning
This is a follow-up to r132565, and should address the rest of PR9969:

Warn about cases such as

int foo(A a, bool b) {
 return a + b ? 1 : 2; // user probably meant a + (b ? 1 : 2);
}

also when + is an overloaded operator call.

llvm-svn: 132784
2011-06-09 17:06:51 +00:00
Hans Wennborg cf9bac4bc9 Warn about missing parentheses for conditional operator.
Warn in cases such as "x + someCondition ? 42 : 0;",
where the condition expression looks arithmetic, and has
a right-hand side that looks boolean.

This (partly) addresses http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9969

llvm-svn: 132565
2011-06-03 18:00:36 +00:00