In D147888#4288149, @Krishna-13-cyber wrote:

I have tried a little modification from my side thinking on a beneficial note. I will make the changes to all the other test files as well if this diagnostic representation goes well after mentor review.

For refactoring and restructuring the whole of the re-declaration would need some time I have been through it and would initiate another patch for that,In the concern of giving or having just one diagnostic for getting all cases of re-declaration would also need multiple conditional or switch statements inside our function block.At present we have the same with conditional statements taking care of each linkage but it has multiple permutations of diagnostic messages which is nice but can be improved.GCC differs only for this case of extern linkage which can be better/precise in clang where as others seem to be more precise in clang than former as I worked out with good number of test cases regarding this.

• Updated with re-adding the required diagnostic message

• Updated with reviewed changes

• Update with addition of testcase
• There is an issue for which the build fails, actually when I replace the diagnostic in /clang/test/Sema/conditional-expr.c Line 89, it tells C99 forbids conditional expressions with only one void side and if I remove it shows seen but not expected and vice versa.It regresses either ways.

In the same manner for comparison of address of 'g' equal to a null pointer is always false.

• Update with diagnostic addition

• Apologies for uploading some other/incorrect diff
• Updated Diff

I have tried a little modification from my side thinking on a beneficial note. I will make the changes to all the other test files as well if this diagnostic representation goes well after mentor review.

In D147888#4274763, @cjdb wrote:

I think we should fundamentally rethink this entire category of diagnostic. Rather than having a static diagnostic per offence stating what happened, we should instead have a single diagnostic that captures both what happened, why it's bad, and how to fix it. Something along the lines of

error: 'x' has been declared with incompatible linkage specifiers (static and extern); please pick exactly one
  extern int x;
  ^~~~~~
note: previous definition here
  static int x;
  ^~~~~~

It'd also be more robust from an engineering perspective, since it means that we won't need to add new diagnostic permutations every time a new linkage specifier is added.

• Updated with removing redundant flags

Thanks a lot everyone for helping me out with my first patch. I have uploaded the patch again after rebase.
Yes, It would be great if you could land it on my behalf.
Name: Krishna Narayanan
Email: <krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com>

• Updated with the diagnostic messages (comments for test cases)

• Updated with release note

• Updated diff with git clang-format HEAD~1

• Updated with clang-formatting
• Removed the redundant from the diff

• Updated patch
• Added testcases for chained operators

This patch aims to remove some redundant cases of static assert messages where the expansions are particularly unhelpful. In this particular patch, we have ignored the printing of diagnostic warnings for binary operators with logical OR operations.
This is done to prioritise and prefer to emit longer diagnostic warnings for more important concerns elsewhere.

I have removed the redundant comments and have moved the if condition above with the ongoing conditional statement (to avoid printing obvious expressions).

Updated with the new test cases and implemented the logic suggested for ignoring the BO_LOr operators at the top level. My sincere apologies @tbaeder that I could not place this logic at the first instance.

The above Binary operator test case says that there are two Boolean expressions,UsefulToPrintExpr says we can avoid to print these expressions as they are don't need a note and are understandable.

Have worked on the top level with Boolean literals unlike the previous diffs.I have updated the test case as well with this new upcoming change.

I have updated the patch without removing the whole of the previous block.I have added a condition to find the case where we don't need a diagnostic message to be printed or warned.