Casts broken in ROOT prompt

[eguiraud]

• Checked for duplicates

Describe the bug

Weird/wrong results printed when converting different entities to bool:

root [0] int foo = 42
(int) 42
root [1] (bool)foo
(bool) true
root [2] bool(foo)
(bool) false

root [0] const char *foo = "asda"
(const char *) "asda"
root [1] !foo
(bool) false
root [2] bool(foo)
(bool) false
root [3] bool(foo[0])
(bool ([0]) @0x55c4ba66f180

[Axel-Naumann]

Also note that the last example is missing a closing ) for the type...

[jalopezg-git]

Hi @eguiraud and @Axel-Naumann,

Actually, this is an instance of vexing parse. Specifically, in the context where bool(foo) appears, it is parsed as a variable declaration with superfluous parenthesis, i.e. same as bool foo. Because definition shadowing is enabled, it replaces the old definition (of type int) and value-initializes it to false, which explains your first reported result.
Moreover, using !!bool(foo) disambiguates the input, which is now parsed as an expression and correctly prints true.

The behavior seen in the second report is again due to vexing parse, and bool(foo[0]) is parsed as the declaration bool foo[0];. Again, switching off definition shadowing gives:

ROOT_prompt_3:1:6: error: redefinition of 'foo' with a different type: 'bool ([0]' vs 'const char *'
bool(foo[0])
     ^
ROOT_prompt_1:1:13: note: previous definition is here
const char *foo = "foo";

In this case, the output (bool ([0]) @0x55c4ba66f180 is the address of the bool [0] object (whose size should be 1).

Also note that the last example is missing a closing ) for the type...

Also, as can be seen above, the diagnostic message provided by Clang has one extra (, which I think should not be there.

Now, what can we do about this? IMHO, while I think that is the correct parsing, we should be probably issuing a warning. Any opinions on this?

Cheers,
Javier.

[devajithvs]

As @jalopezg-git mentioned, bool(foo) appears as a declaration (bool foo).

The following simple C++ code also fails to compile with a re-declaration error and I think that should be the expected behavior.

#include<iostream>
int main() {
        int i = 54;
        bool(i);
}

[guitargeek]

Now, what can we do about this? IMHO, while I think that is the correct parsing, we should be probably issuing a warning. Any opinions on this?

My opinion is if the user employs C-style casts and not e.g. static_cast, then it's on them 🙂

[pcanal]

The challenge here is that the code does silenty the 'wrong' thing. The compiler and the case where shadowing is disabled, correctly fail with a good error. While the current prompt will do the wrong thing completely. On the other hand the issue is likely not severe as this only affect the prompt (where one would possibly cast to get a 'better' printout) and would not affect scripts. (I.e. despite being silent, the user might still notice).

[guitargeek]

On the other the issue is likely not severe as this only affect the prompt (where one would possibly cast to get a 'better' printout) and would not affect scripts. (I.e. despite being silent, the user might still notice).

Exactly, it's not severe for many reasons, and it's not even wrong behavior given clings re-declaration feature.

Indeed a warning in this case would be nice-to-have, but the issue claims "casts broken in ROOT prompt", which is not the case.