I've also found a bunch of similar cases in our codebase, and I'm trying to figure out whether the pattern can be narrowed down to just dangerous cases. If we don't find a way to do so, we'll probably have to resort to "// NOLINT" to shut clang-tidy up. On 13 Sep 2015 10:52, "Kim Gräsman" <kim.gras...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Late to the party, but I wanted to ask: is there a way to indicate to > the checker that we really *did* mean sizeof()? > > I think I've stumbled over code in our code base that uses > sizeof(container) to report memory usage statistics and it seems > valid, so it'd be nice if this checker could be silenced on a > case-by-case basis. > > Thanks, > - Kim > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Indeed. But this has been fixed before I could get to it. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits > > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> aaron.ballman added a comment. > >> > >> This appears to have broken one of the bots: > >> > >> http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/15065 > >> > >> > >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D12759 > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> cfe-commits mailing list > >> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cfe-commits mailing list > > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
