[clang-tidy] Exclude bitwise operators in bugprone-non-zero-enum-to-bool-conversion #65498
Conversation
…ool-conversion Improved bugprone-non-zero-enum-to-bool-conversion check by eliminating false positives resulting from direct usage of bitwise operators.
|
explicit bit usage will not case false positive without this patch. Should we consider case of operator overloading? bool explicitBitUsage1(EStatus value) {
return (value & SUCCESS);
}
bool explicitBitUsage2(EStatus value) {
return (value | SUCCESS);
} |
Yes, thats a side effect due to implicit casting enums to integers. I added tests because those were missing, then I implemented version with cxxOverloadCallExpr and changed it into more generic version by using binaryOperation. |
| @@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ bool NonZeroEnumToBoolConversionCheck::isLanguageVersionSupported( | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| void NonZeroEnumToBoolConversionCheck::registerMatchers(MatchFinder *Finder) { | |||
| auto ExcludedOperators = binaryOperation(hasAnyOperatorName( | |||
| "|", "&", "^", "<<", ">>", "~", "|=", "&=", "^=", "<<=", ">>=")); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you want, then yes, I can reduce this back to overload operators calls only.
I think current implement it fine, but maybe add some comment here to clarify why you want to exclude those operators. Because actually it's for the operator overloading instead of explicit operator.
PiotrZSL
deleted the
65315-clang-tidy-false-positive-bugprone-non-zero-enum-to-bool-conversion-with-custom-operator
branch
…ool-conversion (llvm#65498) Improved bugprone-non-zero-enum-to-bool-conversion check by eliminating false positives resulting from direct usage of bitwise operators.
Improved bugprone-non-zero-enum-to-bool-conversion check by eliminating false positives resulting from direct usage of bitwise operators.