On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> wrote: > 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.
Fair enough, let's axe it until we see evidence it may catch real bugs. ~Aaron > > 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
