danielmarjamaki marked 2 inline comments as done. danielmarjamaki added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13126#302647, @dcoughlin wrote: > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13126#302328, @danielmarjamaki wrote: > > > When scanning 692 projects with this checker I got 56 warnings. I've > > triaged 21 random warnings of these so far and saw 20 TP and 1 FP. > > > > When I have triaged the results there is one kind of "possible FP" that I > > see, like this: > > > > unsigned long x = largevalue; > > bytes[0] = x; // Possible FP here. Technically it's a TP but it's an > > loss of precision by design. > > bytes[1] = x >> 8; > > .... > > > > > > I am currently considering to allow this FP. Any opinions about allowing it? > > > Is there mechanism by which the user can suppress false positives like this > (for example, an explicit cast)? Yes it can be suppressed using for instance "x & 0xff" or "(unsigned char)x". The checker could hide the warning if the previous or next statement is "somevar = x >> 8". I don't think that would cause any significant FN. However I still consider to write the "FP". ================ Comment at: test/Analysis/conversion.c:23 @@ +22,2 @@ + U8 = S+10; +} ---------------- it was removed http://reviews.llvm.org/D13126 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
