alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Sorry for the delay. Feel free to ping me earlier.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp:38
@@ +37,3 @@
+ Finder->addMatcher(
+ cxxConversionDecl(returns(booleanType()), unless(isExplicit()))
+ .bind("operator-bool"),
----------------
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"))));
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp:55
@@ +54,3 @@
+ diag(MatchedDecl->getLocation(),
+ "operator bool declaration is not explicit")
+ << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(MatchedDecl->getLocation(), "explicit ");
----------------
The message should say a bit more on why it is bad, e.g.: "implicit operator
bool allows erroneous comparisons; consider marking operator bool 'explicit'".
Or in a more prescriptive way: "operator bool should be marked 'explicit' to
avoid erroneous comparisons". Feel free to suggest a better option.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/ExplicitOperatorBoolCheck.cpp:64
@@ +63,3 @@
+
+ // FIXME: This tries to change the type and add explicit, but
+ // MatchedDecl->getTypeSpecStartLoc() gets the start of void, not the start
----------------
Looks like you'll need to re-lex the range of the declaration and find the
location of tokens `const`, `void`, `*` between `operator` and `(`. See
clang-tidy/modernize/UseOverrideCheck.cpp for an example.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
