It was about a hundred in a huge codebase. It's definitely manageable, but the experiment has shown that this kind of a mistake is not likely to happen. On 16 Sep 2015 23:25, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
