NoQ added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32906#1264452, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Unfortunately, we are at the beginning of a long road. I will post several > new patches that we already test internally. However the only checker with > acceptable false-positive rate is the `invalidated-iterator` checker. The > `mismatched-iterator` still has high false-positive rate for > iterator-iterator mismatches. For iterator-container mismatches it is > acceptable. The `iterator-range` checker also has still too many false > positives. These 1.5 checkers are a lot, in my opinion. They're preventing undefined behavior that can be very easy to introduce accidentally. I think they're very valuable. Non-powerusers would love to have these checkers turned on by default, and while this is entirely up to you to decide, my vague idea of the greater good suggests that focusing on converging to something not-feature-rich-but-deliverable and delivering that something to the users is a good thing to do, especially given that it seems almost ready, while there's a long road ahead to finish other checkers. Like, if you have 3 tasks and spend 1/3 of your time on each of them, all of them will be done in 3 units of time, but if you first spend 1 unit of time on the first task, then 1 unit of time on the second task, then 1 unit of time on the third task, then even though time to complete all three tasks remains at 3 units you have the benefit of the first and the second task being completed and starting to bring benefit much earlier. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32905 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
