erichkeane wrote: > > I can't for the life of me see a good way to use this. The `if(p)` pattern > > is so common that no code base could ever turn on this warning. We could > > PERHAPS check that we're in the process of checking a condition expression > > and suppress this diagnostic, or recognize this pattern somehow, but > > without some more work to make this more useful, I don't think we can > > accept this diagnostic. > > Given the amount of existing code out there which relies on pointer-to-bool > conversions being well-defined, I don't think this makes sense as a compiler > diagnostic. However, it could be a reasonable clang-tidy check as there are > folks who find such code to be a type safety issue and they might want to > have it diagnosed.
I find myself wondering if there is value/ability to just pattern match the operator= for a `bool` to see if it has said implicit/explicit casts on the RHS. We unfortunately have to do this in something that handles the operator=, instead of the casts themselves (which are too ubiquitous to diagnose), but we should still be able to pattern-match this. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131523 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
