aaron.ballman added a comment.
The "enforcement" listed on the C++ Core Guidelines is very unhelpful, so it
might be worth bringing it up as an issue on their bug tracker. ES.100
basically says "you know what we mean, wink wink" as enforcement and doesn't
give any guidance as to what is safe or unsafe. It gives no exceptions, which I
think is unlikely to be useful to most developers. For instance: `void
f(unsigned i) { if (i > 0) {} }`, this is a mixed signed and unsigned
comparison (literals are signed by default) -- should this check diagnose? How
about `unsigned int i = 12; i += 1;`? ES.102 is equally as strange with "Flag
unsigned literals (e.g. -2) used as container subscripts." That's a signed
literal (2) with a negation operator -- do they mean "Flag container subscripts
whose value is known to be negative", or something else?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/MixedIntArithmeticCheck.cpp:31
+ binaryOperator(allOf(anyOf(hasOperatorName("+"), hasOperatorName("-"),
+ hasOperatorName("*"), hasOperatorName("/")),
+ hasEitherOperand(UnsignedIntegerOperand),
----------------
What about `%` or comparisons operators?
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-mixed-int-arithmetic.cpp:167-168
+void pure_signed() {
+ int SInt1 = 42u;
+ signed char SChar1 = 42u;
+ SignedEnum SE1 = SEnum1;
----------------
I think these are intended to be flagged under ES.102. "Flag results of
unsigned arithmetic assigned to or printed as signed."
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40854
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
