On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:10:26PM +0000, Samuel Benzaquen via cfe-commits > wrote: >> sbenza added a comment. >> >> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14096#275902, @xazax.hun wrote: >> >> > There is already a similar check in the Google package. What are the >> > differences between those two checks? What is the reason we can not just >> > register that check into the core guidelines module? >> >> >> That other check discourages c-style cast in favor of C++ style casts, even >> if it is a reinterpret_cast. It simply replaces the cstyle cast with an >> equivalent C++ one. It is basically a stylistic check. >> >> This check will warn unsafe cstyle casts, while allowing safe ones like >> int->uint casts. >> This one is a safety related check. > > Looking back to the discussion about the C++ style casts, this argument > makes no sense. For C++ code, reinterpret_cast is clearly preferable > over C-style casts for all but code size reasons. There seems to be no > consideration about "safe" uses with reinterpret_cast, so why should C-style > casts > be different?
"Clearly preferable" is kind of debatable, but I don't disagree with your statement. That being said, this checker isn't concerned with C++-style casts, so I'm not certain I understand what you would like to see changed with this checker. Can you elaborate? ~Aaron > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
