On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> wrote: > All found results were intended usages of sizeof on containers. 100% false > positive rate that is.
Yes, but is that 4 results in 10MM LoC, or 4000 results in 40k LoC? ;-) I guess I just don't have a good feel for how large the codebase is, and how many times it resulted in matching sane code. If it's really low (like 4 out of 10MM LoC), I think the checker may possibly be useful (just not in that code base). If it's anything remotely high, then I would agree, let's ditch it and not look back. ~Aaron > > On 16 Sep 2015 21:23, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > An update: I didn't find a single bug with this check in a large >> > codebase. >> > Turns out that it's rather useless. I'm inclined to kill it. >> >> How bad is the false positive rate? >> >> ~Aaron >> >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Alexander Kornienko >> > <ale...@google.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> 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
