Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp:38
@@ +37,3 @@
+ Finder->addMatcher(
+ cxxConversionDecl(returns(booleanType()), unless(isExplicit()))
+ .bind("operator-bool"),
alexfh wrote:
> Please merge these two matchers to avoid repeated work. Something along the
> lines of:
>
> cxxConversionDecl(unless(isExplicit()),
> anyOf(cxxConversionDecl(returns(booleanType())).bind("operator-bool"),
> cxxConversionDecl(returns(pointerType(pointee(isConstQualified(),
> voidType(.bind("operator-void-pointer";
It seems that I can't pass cxxConversionDecls to anyOf(). I can pass anyOf to
cxxConversionDecl, but then I don't see how to bind() to the two kinds of
declaration separately:
Finder->addMatcher(
cxxConversionDecl(
anyOf(returns(booleanType()),
returns(pointerType(pointee(isConstQualified(), voidType(),
unless(isExplicit())),
this);
I also wonder if I'll be able to combine them while keeping the check for
WarnOnOperatorVoidPointer, to avoid unnecessary work when that is disabled.
(And I still wonder if you even want the check for operator void*.)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20857
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc added a comment. I'd still be perfectly happy if just the simple check for implicit operator bool was accepted. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc updated this revision to Diff 62355.
murrayc marked an inline comment as done.
murrayc added a comment.
Same as previous patch, but with a tiny suggested whitespace corretion.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.h
clang-tidy/modernize/ModernizeTidyModule.cpp
docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool-void-pointer.cpp
test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-explicit-operator-bool %t -- -- -std=c++11
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator bool() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: operator bool declaration is not explicit [modernize-explicit-operator-bool]
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool-void-pointer.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool-void-pointer.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-explicit-operator-bool %t -- -- -std=c++11
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator const void *() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: implicit operator const void* declaration should probably be explicit operator bool [modernize-explicit-operator-bool]
+return reinterpret_cast(something != 0);
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ // Note: Use modernize-explicit-operator-bool to check for implicit operator bool.
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator const void *() const {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ const int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitNonConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodNonConstVoidPtr {
+ // A non-const void* is unlikely to to be meant as operator bool before C++11
+ // let us use explicit.
+ operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+
+This check finds implicit ``operator bool`` overloads and inserts the
+``explicit`` keyword, which is available since C++11.
+
+Without the ``explicit`` keyword, the implicit ``bool`` overload can allow
+objects to be compared accidentally. For instance, even when objects `a` and
+`b` have no ``operator ==`` overloads, an implicit ``operator bool`` would allow
+`a == b` to compile because both `a` and `b` can be implictly converted to
+``bool``.
+
+This check also finds implicit ``operator const void*`` overloads. These were
+often used before C++11 to avoid implicit conversions to ``bool`` when providing
+an ``operator bool`` overload.
+
+To disable the check for ``operator const void*`` overloads, you may set
+The :option:`WarnOnOperatorVoidPointer` option to 1.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ operator bool () const;
+
+ // becomes
+
+ explicit operator bool () const;
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@
misc-virtual-near-miss
modernize-avoid-bind
modernize-deprecated-headers
+ modernize-explicit-operator-bool
modernize-loop-convert
modernize-make-shared
modernize-make-unique
Index: docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
===
--- docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -204,6 +204,13 @@
Replaces C standard library headers with their C++ alternatives.
+- New `modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+ `_ check
+
+ Adds the ``explicit`` keyword to ``operator bool`` overloads.
+ Also finds ``operator const void*`` overloads, which should often be
+ ``explicit operator bool`` overloads.
+
- New `modernize-make-shared
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857#449080, @alexfh wrote:
> Looks like a useful check to have. I'm not sure though, that it has anything
> to do with "modernize". I'd suggest adding a new "bugprone" module (should be
> added by http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821, hopefully soon) and moving the check
> there.
Fair enough. My logic is that this is a problem that can only be fixed properly
in C++11 and that the best/correct/common way to do this has changed from C++98
to C++11. It's not just a nice use of new syntax (such as auto), it's also
fixes bugs, but it's still use of new syntax.
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool-void-pointer.cpp:6
@@ +5,3 @@
+ operator const void *() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: implicit operator const void*
declaration should probably be explicit operator bool
[modernize-explicit-operator-bool]
+return reinterpret_cast(something != 0);
alexfh wrote:
> From the first glance, this doesn't look like an easy mistake to make. Have
> you actually seen this pattern in real code?
Yes, in glibmm and gtkmm, which I maintain. This commit is from me though the
idea wasn't:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtkmm/commit/gtk/src/treerowreference.hg?id=c182608593e2d4799f523580a0532fbc68d296b2
We later used a typedef to make that clearer:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtkmm/commit/gtk/src/treerowreference.hg?id=7dff74cca47827d6e34bc8f239674bf044ddedaa
There's lots of mention of this in StackOverflow, though not always so clearly.
For instance:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9134888/is-using-void-instead-of-bool-an-advisable-practice
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc updated this revision to Diff 59537.
murrayc added a comment.
Combined into one check. Also specifies C++11 for the test.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.h
clang-tidy/modernize/ModernizeTidyModule.cpp
docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool-void-pointer.cpp
test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-explicit-operator-bool %t -- -- -std=c++11
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator bool() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: operator bool declaration is not explicit [modernize-explicit-operator-bool]
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool-void-pointer.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool-void-pointer.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-explicit-operator-bool %t -- -- -std=c++11
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator const void *() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: implicit operator const void* declaration should probably be explicit operator bool [modernize-explicit-operator-bool]
+return reinterpret_cast(something != 0);
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ //Note: Use modernize-explicit-operator-bool to check for implicit operator bool.
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator const void *() const {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ const int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitNonConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodNonConstVoidPtr {
+ // A non-const void* is unlikely to to be meant as operator bool before C++11
+ // let us use explicit.
+ operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+
+This check finds implicit ``operator bool`` overloads and inserts the
+``explicit`` keyword, which is available since C++11.
+
+Without the ``explicit`` keyword, the implicit ``bool`` overload can allow
+objects to be compared accidentally. For instance, even when objects `a` and
+`b` have no ``operator ==`` overloads, an implicit ``operator bool`` would allow
+`a == b` to compile because both `a` and `b` can be implictly converted to
+``bool``.
+
+This check also finds implicit ``operator const void*`` overloads. These were
+often used before C++11 to avoid implicit conversions to ``bool`` when providing
+an ``operator bool`` overload.
+
+To disable the check for ``operator const void*`` overloads, you may set
+The :option:`WarnOnOperatorVoidPointer` option to 1.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ operator bool () const;
+
+ // becomes
+
+ explicit operator bool () const;
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@
misc-virtual-near-miss
modernize-avoid-bind
modernize-deprecated-headers
+ modernize-explicit-operator-bool
modernize-loop-convert
modernize-make-shared
modernize-make-unique
Index: docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
===
--- docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -190,6 +190,13 @@
Replaces C standard library headers with their C++ alternatives.
+- New `modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+ `_ check
+
+ Adds the ``explicit`` keyword to ``operator bool`` overloads.
+ Also finds ``operator const void*`` overloads, which should often be
+ ``explicit operator bool`` overloads.
+
- New `modernize-make-shared
`
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/OperatorVoidPointerCheck.cpp:27 @@ +26,3 @@ + Finder->addMatcher(cxxConversionDecl(returns(pointerType(pointee( + isConstQualified(), voidType(, + unless(isExplicit())) etienneb wrote: > I'm curious, why: isConstQualified() ? > I'm probably missing something. This is a workaround for the lack of explicit operator bool before C++: operator const void*() const; but this would be unlikely to be meant the same way, partly because the constness would be awkward: operator void*() const; Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/OperatorVoidPointerCheck.cpp:40 @@ +39,3 @@ + + // FIXME: This tries to change the type and add explicit, but + // MatchedDecl->getTypeSpecStartLoc() gets the start of void, not the start etienneb wrote: > The FIXME only apply to the fixtit statements. > << FIxItHint(...) > > you can still output a diag message. Yes. I do that in the previous lines. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857#446732, @etienneb wrote: > Enabling/disabling can be done with options (see SizeofExpressionCheck). Thanks. Am I being asked to combine the checks? http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc updated this revision to Diff 59367.
murrayc added a comment.
With suggested changes. Ran clang-format (LLVM style). Used voidType() matcher.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.h
clang-tidy/modernize/ModernizeTidyModule.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/OperatorVoidPointerCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/OperatorVoidPointerCheck.h
docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-operator-void-pointer.rst
test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
test/clang-tidy/modernize-operator-void-pointer.cpp
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-operator-void-pointer.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-operator-void-pointer.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-operator-void-pointer %t
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator const void *() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: implicit operator void* declaration should probably be explicit operator bool [modernize-operator-void-pointer]
+return reinterpret_cast(something != 0);
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ //Note: Use modernize-explicit-operator-bool to check for implicit operator bool.
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator const void *() const {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ const int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitNonConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodNonConstVoidPtr {
+ // A non-const void* is unlikely to to be meant as operator bool before C++11
+ // let us use explicit.
+ operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-explicit-operator-bool %t
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator bool() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: operator bool declaration is not explicit [modernize-explicit-operator-bool]
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-operator-void-pointer.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-operator-void-pointer.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - modernize-operator-void-pointer
+
+modernize-operator-void-pointer
+
+
+This check finds implicit ``operator void*`` overloads and replaces them with
+``explicit operator bool`` overloads, available since C++11.
+
+Implicit ``operator void*`` overloads were often used before C++11 to avoid
+implicit conversions to ``bool`` when providing an ``operator bool`` overload,
+but C++11 provides the ``explicit`` keyword.
+
+See also the modernize-implicit-operator-bool check.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ operator void* () const;
+
+ // becomes
+
+ explicit operator bool () const;
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+
+This check finds implicit ``operator bool`` overloads and inserts the
+``explicit`` keyword, which is available since C++11.
+
+Without the ``explicit`` keyword, the implicit ``bool`` overload can allow
+objects to be compared accidentally. For instance, even when objects a and b
+have no ``operator ==`` overloads, an implicit ``operator bool`` would allow
+``a == b`` to compile because both a and b can be implictly converted to
+``bool``.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ operator bool () const;
+
+ // becomes
+
+ explicit operator bool () const;
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@
misc-virtual-near-miss
modernize-avoid-bind
modernize-deprecated-headers
+ modernize-explicit-operator-bool
modernize-loop-convert
modernize-make-shared
modernize-make-unique
@@ -106,6 +107,7 @@
modernize-use
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857#446101, @etienneb wrote: > I wonder if these two checks should not be merge in one checker. Personally I find it cleaner to keep them separate, but I would be happy to combine them if that's wanted. I guessed that it would be easier to accept the explicit bool check than the operator void pointer check, and didn't want to make acceptance harder. I can also imagine someone wanting to disable one but not the other. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.
murrayc updated this revision to Diff 59346.
murrayc added a comment.
These are the commits amended with the suggested changes.
Many thanks for the suggestions.
(I'm not quite sure what arcanist will do, so hopefully this will not create a
mess.)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.h
clang-tidy/modernize/ModernizeTidyModule.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/OperatorVoidPointerCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/OperatorVoidPointerCheck.h
docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-operator-void-pointer.rst
test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
test/clang-tidy/modernize-operator-void-pointer.cpp
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-operator-void-pointer.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-operator-void-pointer.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-operator-void-pointer %t
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator const void *() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: implicit operator void* declaration should probably be explicit operator bool [modernize-operator-void-pointer]
+return reinterpret_cast(something != 0);
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ //Note: Use modernize-explicit-operator-bool to check for implicit operator bool.
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator const void *() const {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ const int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodExplicitNonConstVoidPtr {
+ explicit operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGoodNonConstVoidPtr {
+ // A non-const void* is unlikely to to be meant as operator bool before C++11
+ // let us use explicit.
+ operator void *() {
+return &something;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ test/clang-tidy/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s modernize-explicit-operator-bool %t
+
+// This should trigger the check:
+class SomethingBad {
+ operator bool() const {
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: operator bool declaration is not explicit [modernize-explicit-operator-bool]
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
+
+class SomethingGood {
+ explicit operator bool() const {
+return something != 0;
+ }
+
+ int something = 0;
+};
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-operator-void-pointer.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-operator-void-pointer.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - modernize-operator-void-pointer
+
+modernize-operator-void-pointer
+
+
+This check finds implicit ``operator void*`` overloads and replaces them with
+``explicit operator bool`` overloads, available since C++11.
+
+Implicit ``operator void*`` overloads were often used before C++11 to avoid
+implicit conversions to ``bool`` when providing an ``operator bool`` overload,
+but C++11 provides the ``explicit`` keyword.
+
+See also the modernize-implicit-operator-bool check.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ operator void* () const;
+
+ // becomes
+
+ explicit operator bool () const;
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-explicit-operator-bool.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+modernize-explicit-operator-bool
+
+
+This check finds implicit ``operator bool`` overloads and inserts the
+``explicit`` keyword, which is available since C++11.
+
+Without the ``explicit`` keyword, the implicit ``bool`` overload can allow
+objects to be compared accidentally. For instance, even when objects a and b
+have no ``operator ==`` overloads, an implicit ``operator bool`` would allow
+``a == b`` to compile because both a and b can be implictly converted to
+``bool``.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ operator bool () const;
+
+ // becomes
+
+ explicit operator bool () const;
Index: docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
===
--- docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
+++ docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@
misc-virtual-near-miss
modernize-avoid-bind
modernize-deprecated-headers
+ modernize-explicit-operator-bool
modernize-loo
