carlosgalvezp added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/EnumToIntCheck.cpp:45
+ } else {
+ Note << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(MatchedExpr->getBeginLoc(), "(int)");
+ }
----------------
pfultz2 wrote:
> carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > I don't think we can assume the type of the enum is `int`, see for example:
> >
> > ```
> > enum Foo : unsigned int
> > {
> > a,
> > b
> > };
> >
> >
> > void f(unsigned int);
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > f(a);
> > }
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Even if there is no explicit underlying type, isn't the underlying type
> > implementation-defined?
> Since its an explicit cast then we should probably use the type that the
> function accepts(since thats what it will be eventually converted to) rather
> than the type of the underling enum type.
I'm not sure that's correct either, and it could lead to narrowing conversion
warnings being ignored, see example:
https://godbolt.org/z/PfPxEYPrj
The correct thing to do would be to cast to the underlying type of the enum. A
user could do it like this, although it's quite unreadable:
static_cast<std::underlying_type_t<MyEnum>>(enum_value)
But since in this context we have a lot more information from the AST, maybe we
can automatically figure out the underlying type of the enum without having to
call `std::underlying_type`?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D129570/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D129570
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
