danielmarjamaki added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31097#707385, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There is an option to disable the checking of widening casts. It is enabled
> by default. You can disable it any time. Or, if you find too much false
> positives, we can discuss about setting this option to disabled as default.
>
> I am convinced that checking implicit widening casts are also necessary. We
> should probably change the error message in the implicit case from
> "misplaced" to "missing", and maybe also rename the checker itself.
> Separating it to two different checkers, which are almost copy of each other
> is huge code duplication.
It would help to disable it by default and changing the message. But also I
believe it's philosophically different to the original checker.
I would say that your logic is more philosophically similar to Wconversion.
Could it be added there instead?
Did you try this check on real code? Do you think there is a problem that
should be fixed here?
void foo(unsigned int N) {
long L;
if (N<10)
L = N << 8;
...
I am assuming that such code is not uncommon. If you don't think there is a
problem in that code then I would personally suggest that you update the
ConversionChecker in the analyzer instead.
I do believe that a warning about that code is a false positive.
The idea with the misc-misplaced-widening-cast is that if the developer writes
such code:
void foo(unsigned int N) {
long L;
if (N<10)
L = (long)(N << 8);
...
Then there is a message "either cast is misplaced or there is truncation". In
this case the cast is misplaced and it can be removed.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31097
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
