On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:29 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Should we add a note diagnostic to clang suggesting the explicit cast
> as one method of silencing the warning?
On the compiler side, I would love to see warnings about the ambiguity
of the sign of 'char' in the general case.
That said, I tried to add that to 'sparse' long long ago, and couldn't
make it work sanely. All the approaches I tried all get _way_ too many
false positives.
I tried to come up with some way of figuring out "this code acts
differently depending on whether 'char' is signed or not" and warning
about it, and never could.
And I suspect the same is true even for the much moire limited case of
only format warnings.
Because it's a *bad* idea to use '%d' (or almost any other format
specifier) together with a 'char' argument, but only if you don't know
the range of the char argument.
But the other side of the argument is that quite often, people *do*
know the range of the 'char' argument. If your 'char' type thing comes
from some array or string that you control, and you used 'char' simply
because you know you have small values (typical example: use it for an
array of booleans etc), then it would be very annoying if the compiler
warned you about using '%d'.
There is no reason to use '%hhd' when you know your data range is [0,1].
So honestly, I don't think you can come up with a sane warning that
doesn't cause *way* too many false positives and just annoys people.
I'd love to be proven wrong. In fact, I'd _really_ love to be proven
wrong for that generic case. The "sometimes 'char' is signed,
sometimes it is unsigned, and it depends on the architecture and the
compiler flags" can be a real problem.
Linus
