aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-narrowing-conversions.cpp:42-44 i += 2.0; - // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: narrowing conversion from 'double' to 'int' [cppcoreguidelines-narrowing-conversions] + // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: narrowing conversion from constant 'double' to 'int' [cppcoreguidelines-narrowing-conversions] i += 2.0f; ---------------- gchatelet wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > I don't think these should diagnose. They're both harmless as the literal > > values are exactly representable in the destination type. > Yes indeed they are harmless but why not write the correct literal in the > first place? > I'm keeping these warnings for now. Let me know if you feel strongly about it. > Yes indeed they are harmless but why not write the correct literal in the > first place? Why force the user to modify their code when the behavior will be exactly the same as before? > I'm keeping these warnings for now. Let me know if you feel strongly about it. I don't feel very strongly on this case, but it seems needlessly chatty to me to diagnose code that's not incorrect. For instance, this code could exist in a (system) header file that the user doesn't have the ability to correct. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D53488 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
