aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44231#1039888, @hokein wrote:
> As this patch can catch some mistakes, I'm fine with checking it in. I agree
> that it is reasonable to write normal code like `sizeof(func_call())` (not
> false positive), maybe set the option to `false` by default?
I am okay with requiring people to enable this part of the check explicitly.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/SizeofExpressionCheck.cpp:220
+ Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<Expr>("sizeof-integer-call")) {
+ diag(E->getLocStart(), "suspicious usage of 'sizeof(expr)' to an integer");
} else if (const auto *E = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<Expr>("sizeof-this")) {
----------------
pfultz2 wrote:
> alexfh wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand the message "suspicious usage of ... to an
> > integer". Specifically, what does the "to an integer" part mean?
> That could probably be worded better. It means the `expr` is an integer type.
> Maybe I should say `suspicious usage of 'sizeof() on an expression that
> results in an integer`?
Missing a terminating quote around `sizeof`.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-sizeof-expression.rst:28
+
+A common mistake is to query the ``sizeof`` on an integer or enum that
+represents the type, which will give the size of the integer and not of the
----------------
It's not obvious what "the type" refers to in this sentence. Also, it is
incorrect to state that "A common mistake is to query the size of an integer"
-- that's an incredibly common practice. You may need a bit more setup in the
explanation to give the reader context.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44231
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
