danielmarjamaki added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16310#331538, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> If you state what the check does, then > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16310#331054, @danielmarjamaki wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16310#330367, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > > > > > Why not supply a fixit that removes the cast? > > > > > > I am skeptic. There are different valid fixes. > > > > Example code: > > > > l = (long)(a*1000); > > > > > > Fix1: > > > > l = ((long)a * 1000); > > > > > > Fix2: > > > > l = (a * (long)1000); > > > > > > Fix3: > > > > l = (a * 1000L); > > > The way I see it, the check is complaining about the pointless cast and > pointing the finger at the beginning of the cast. To me, my expectation is > that the suggested fix is none of the options you gave but instead: > > l = (a*1000); > I expect that this warning will in most cases be fixed by moving the cast. I believe there is often a bug in such code. If you want that we hide these bugs by removing the casts I can do it.. but I personally think that is wrong. And yes clang-tidy does not have static analysis. that would not help much to determine proper fix anyway - if we can see there is overflow then should it be fixed with fix 1,2,3 or is the overflow intentional. Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D16310 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
