On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:48:53PM -0500, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits wrote: > 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?
Let me reverse that. Do the core guidelines really define a set of "safe" C-style casts and don't have the equivalent for C++ casts? The latter is what I took from the follow-up on the introduction of the C++ cast checkers. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
