rspec/rules/S3630/cfamily/rule.adoc

== Why is this an issue?

Because ``++reinterpret_cast++`` does not perform any type safety validations, it is capable of performing dangerous conversions between unrelated types.


Since {cpp}20, a ``++std::bit_cast++`` should be used instead of ``++reinterpret_cast++`` to reinterpret a value as being of a different type of the same length preserving its binary representation, as the behavior of  ``++reinterpret_cast++`` is undefined in such case.


This rule raises an issue when ``++reinterpret_cast++`` is used.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,cpp]
----
  class A { public: virtual ~A(){} };
  class B : public A { public: void doSomething(){} };

  void func(A *a, float f) {
    if (B* b = reinterpret_cast<B*>(a)) { // Noncompliant
      b->doSomething();
    }
    int x = *reinterpret_cast<int*>(f); // Noncompliant
  }
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,cpp]
----
  class A { public: virtual ~A(){} };
  class B : public A { public: void doSomething(){} };

  void func(A *a, float f) {
    if (B* b = dynamic_cast<B*>(a)) {
      b->doSomething();
    }
    int x = std::bit_cast<int>(f);
  }
----


include::../see.adoc[]


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Replace "reinterpret_cast" with a safer cast or refactor the code to avoid such an unsafe cast.


=== Highlighting

``++reinterpret_cast++`` keyword


'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]