This question extends Why use !! when converting int to bool?.
I thought I was being cool when I did something like:
bool hasParent() {
return this->parentNode;
}
Where this->parentNode
is NULL
when there is no parent node.
But I'm getting:
warning C4800: 'Node *' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)
Even with a (bool) cast, the warning still doesn't go away.
What's the deal, yo? Why is that a performance warning? I thought it'd be less efficient to write something like:
bool hasParent() {
if (this->parentNode)
return true;
else
return false;
}
But the second version generates no warnings and the compiler seems a lot happier. Which is faster though?
There's a discussion on Microsoft Connect about this (What is the performance implication of converting to bool in C++?). The example given to Microsoft is:
$ cat -n t.cpp && cl -c -W3 -O2 -nologo -Fa t.cpp
1 bool f1 (int i)
2 {
3 return i & 2;
4 }
5
6 bool f2 (int i)
7 {
8 const bool b = i & 2;
9 return b;
10 }
11
12 bool f3 (int i)
13 {
14 const bool b = 0 != (i & 2);
15 return b;
16 }
t.cpp
t.cpp(3) : warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)
t.cpp(8) : warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)
And Microsoft's response (from the developer responsible for the warning) is:
This warning is surprisingly helpful, and found a bug in my code just yesterday. I think Martin is taking "performance warning" out of context.
It's not about the generated code, it's about whether or not the programmer has signalled an intent to change a value from int to bool. There is a penalty for that, and the user has the choice to use "int" instead of "bool" consistently (or more likely vice versa) to avoid the "boolifying" codegen. The warning is suppressed in the third case below because he's clearly signalled his intent to accept the int->bool transition.
It is an old warning, and may have outlived its purpose, but it's behaving as designed here
So basically the MS developer seems to be saying that if you want to 'cast' an int
to bool
you should more properly do it by using "return this->parentNode != 0
" instead of an implicit or explicit cast.
Personally, I'd be interested to know more about what kind of bugs the warning uncovers. I'd think that this warning wouldn't have a whole lot of value.