ztamas added a comment. In D71174#1815830 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71174#1815830>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> A little bit late to the party, but still. > I'm honestly wondering if this should be a proper clang static analyzer > data-flow aware check. > This is basically diagnosing every `signed char` -> `signed int` promotion, > regardless of whether > the `char` is used as an ASCII char or not. It really seems like a wrong, > noise-filled approach.. I've considered creating a static analyzer check instead before I implemented this clang-tidy check and it seemed to me path analysis would not help too much. At least in those cases, what I found in LibreOffice codebase, there was no additional knowledge in the code about the character's value range. (Actually, in one use case the method name contained "ASCII", but this information can't be used by the static analyzer I guess.) For example, when the code reads a file it's not known whether the file will contain only ASCII characters or not. Or if you have a function working with characters (without having any explicit check in it about character value range), then the static analyzer won't help there anyway. I'm not sure how many test cases can be filtered out with a static analyzer check in practice, but I feel like it's not much more effective than a clang-tidy check in this case. As I recall path analysis stops working if it reaches a loop, right? It loses the information from before the loop or something like that, which makes a static analyzer check even less useful, because characters are rare to go alone. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71174/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71174 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
