gchatelet added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/NarrowingConversionsCheck.cpp:178 + return; + // Conversions to unsigned integer are well defined and follow modulo 2 + // arithmetic. ---------------- JonasToth wrote: > I am surprised by `following modulo 2 arithmetic` and think it's a bit > misleading. Writing just `module arithmetic` is probably better, as `module > 2` somewhat implies there a only 2 valid values (0, 1). > > Is this the `int` -> `unsigned int` case path? That seems worth diagnosing > too. Yes, thx for noticing. I updated the comment, I think it's better now. Indeed this is the `int` -> `unsigned int` case path. Warning here would lead to a lot of noise for everybody doing bitwise operations since `-1` is a compact way to represent the maximum value. Since the semantic is valid and well defined by the standard I'm unsure it's worth the pain. I'm open to suggestions though. Maybe a good way to figure out is what would be the correct fix for say `unsigned long AllBits = -1;` 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
