libreoffice/compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

84 lines
2.4 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

/* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 4; fill-column: 100 -*- */
/*
* This file is part of the LibreOffice project.
*
* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
* License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
* file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
*/
#include <sal/config.h>
#include <array>
#include <atomic>
Tweak loplugin:implicitboolconversion to allow some more bool -> sal_Bool ...in templated code, to cater for the needs of <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124400> "Prepare for removal of non-const operator[] from Sequence in testtools". For one, by defining ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr, make sure that Clang versions before and after <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0a42fe70a566f22599e04a6f1344ca2dc5565e17> "[AST] Treat semantic form of InitListExpr as implicit code in traversals" behave the same. Old versions of Clang would have erroneously reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Bool>> s2{ { false } }; (and reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Int32>> s4{ { false } }; twice) in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx when one of the four combinations of syntactic/semantic visit of the outer/inner InitListExpr defeated the intended suppression logic in ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. And for another, ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr can subsume the exising ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. But for a third, that would still make Sequence<Wrap2<sal_Bool>> s6{ { false } }; in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx emit a false warning, so add a cheesy "TODO" chicken-out special case to ImplicitBoolConversion::checkCXXConstructExpr for now. Change-Id: Ib9a1b78a7812feb98c673b75a357af7737168342 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124583 Tested-by: Jenkins Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
2021-11-02 08:41:42 +01:00
#include <initializer_list>
#include <com/sun/star/uno/Sequence.hxx>
#include <sal/types.h>
Tweak loplugin:implicitboolconversion to allow some more bool -> sal_Bool ...in templated code, to cater for the needs of <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124400> "Prepare for removal of non-const operator[] from Sequence in testtools". For one, by defining ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr, make sure that Clang versions before and after <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0a42fe70a566f22599e04a6f1344ca2dc5565e17> "[AST] Treat semantic form of InitListExpr as implicit code in traversals" behave the same. Old versions of Clang would have erroneously reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Bool>> s2{ { false } }; (and reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Int32>> s4{ { false } }; twice) in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx when one of the four combinations of syntactic/semantic visit of the outer/inner InitListExpr defeated the intended suppression logic in ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. And for another, ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr can subsume the exising ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. But for a third, that would still make Sequence<Wrap2<sal_Bool>> s6{ { false } }; in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx emit a false warning, so add a cheesy "TODO" chicken-out special case to ImplicitBoolConversion::checkCXXConstructExpr for now. Change-Id: Ib9a1b78a7812feb98c673b75a357af7737168342 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124583 Tested-by: Jenkins Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
2021-11-02 08:41:42 +01:00
template <typename T> struct Sequence
{
Sequence(std::initializer_list<T>);
};
template <typename T> struct Wrap1
{
T element;
};
template <typename T> struct Wrap2
{
Wrap2(T const& e)
: element(e)
{
}
T element;
};
bool g();
void h(bool);
void f()
{
// expected-error@+1 {{implicit conversion (IntegralCast) from 'bool' to 'int' [loplugin:implicitboolconversion]}}
int i = false;
// expected-error@+1 {{implicit conversion (IntegralCast) from 'bool' to 'int' [loplugin:implicitboolconversion]}}
i = true;
(void)i;
std::atomic<bool> b = false;
(void)b;
//TODO: Emit only one diagnostic here:
// expected-error@+2 {{implicit conversion (ConstructorConversion) from 'bool' to 'std::atomic<int>' [loplugin:implicitboolconversion]}}
// expected-error-re@+1 {{implicit conversion (IntegralCast) from 'bool' to {{.+}} [loplugin:implicitboolconversion]}}
std::atomic<int> a = false;
(void)a;
bool b2 = true;
b2 &= g();
(void)b2;
Tweak loplugin:implicitboolconversion to allow some more bool -> sal_Bool ...in templated code, to cater for the needs of <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124400> "Prepare for removal of non-const operator[] from Sequence in testtools". For one, by defining ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr, make sure that Clang versions before and after <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0a42fe70a566f22599e04a6f1344ca2dc5565e17> "[AST] Treat semantic form of InitListExpr as implicit code in traversals" behave the same. Old versions of Clang would have erroneously reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Bool>> s2{ { false } }; (and reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Int32>> s4{ { false } }; twice) in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx when one of the four combinations of syntactic/semantic visit of the outer/inner InitListExpr defeated the intended suppression logic in ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. And for another, ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr can subsume the exising ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. But for a third, that would still make Sequence<Wrap2<sal_Bool>> s6{ { false } }; in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx emit a false warning, so add a cheesy "TODO" chicken-out special case to ImplicitBoolConversion::checkCXXConstructExpr for now. Change-Id: Ib9a1b78a7812feb98c673b75a357af7737168342 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124583 Tested-by: Jenkins Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
2021-11-02 08:41:42 +01:00
Sequence<sal_Bool> s1{ false };
(void)s1;
Sequence<Sequence<sal_Bool>> s2{ { false } };
(void)s2;
// expected-error@+1 {{implicit conversion (IntegralCast) from 'bool' to 'const int' [loplugin:implicitboolconversion]}}
Sequence<int> s3{ false };
Tweak loplugin:implicitboolconversion to allow some more bool -> sal_Bool ...in templated code, to cater for the needs of <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124400> "Prepare for removal of non-const operator[] from Sequence in testtools". For one, by defining ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr, make sure that Clang versions before and after <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0a42fe70a566f22599e04a6f1344ca2dc5565e17> "[AST] Treat semantic form of InitListExpr as implicit code in traversals" behave the same. Old versions of Clang would have erroneously reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Bool>> s2{ { false } }; (and reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Int32>> s4{ { false } }; twice) in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx when one of the four combinations of syntactic/semantic visit of the outer/inner InitListExpr defeated the intended suppression logic in ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. And for another, ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr can subsume the exising ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. But for a third, that would still make Sequence<Wrap2<sal_Bool>> s6{ { false } }; in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx emit a false warning, so add a cheesy "TODO" chicken-out special case to ImplicitBoolConversion::checkCXXConstructExpr for now. Change-Id: Ib9a1b78a7812feb98c673b75a357af7737168342 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124583 Tested-by: Jenkins Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
2021-11-02 08:41:42 +01:00
(void)s3;
// expected-error@+1 {{implicit conversion (IntegralCast) from 'bool' to 'const int' [loplugin:implicitboolconversion]}}
Sequence<Sequence<int>> s4{ { false } };
Tweak loplugin:implicitboolconversion to allow some more bool -> sal_Bool ...in templated code, to cater for the needs of <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124400> "Prepare for removal of non-const operator[] from Sequence in testtools". For one, by defining ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr, make sure that Clang versions before and after <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0a42fe70a566f22599e04a6f1344ca2dc5565e17> "[AST] Treat semantic form of InitListExpr as implicit code in traversals" behave the same. Old versions of Clang would have erroneously reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Bool>> s2{ { false } }; (and reported Sequence<Sequence<sal_Int32>> s4{ { false } }; twice) in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx when one of the four combinations of syntactic/semantic visit of the outer/inner InitListExpr defeated the intended suppression logic in ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. And for another, ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseInitListExpr can subsume the exising ImplicitBoolConversion::TraverseCXXStdInitializerListExpr. But for a third, that would still make Sequence<Wrap2<sal_Bool>> s6{ { false } }; in compilerplugins/clang/test/implicitboolconversion.cxx emit a false warning, so add a cheesy "TODO" chicken-out special case to ImplicitBoolConversion::checkCXXConstructExpr for now. Change-Id: Ib9a1b78a7812feb98c673b75a357af7737168342 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/124583 Tested-by: Jenkins Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
2021-11-02 08:41:42 +01:00
(void)s4;
Wrap1<sal_Bool> w1{ false };
Sequence<Wrap1<sal_Bool>> s5{ { false } };
(void)s5;
Wrap2<sal_Bool> w2{ false };
(void)w2;
Sequence<Wrap2<sal_Bool>> s6{ { false } };
(void)s6;
h(w1.element);
css::uno::Sequence<sal_Bool> s7(1);
h(s7[0]);
std::array<sal_Bool, 1> s8;
s8[0] = false;
}
/* vim:set shiftwidth=4 softtabstop=4 expandtab cinoptions=b1,g0,N-s cinkeys+=0=break: */