NoQ added a comment.
In D64274#1584974 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274#1584974>,
@baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Hmm, I still fail to understand the problem with the current `VirtualCall`
> checker. Is it unstable? Does it report many false positives?
Yeah, pretty much. It's basically defined to find non-bugs and so far i've seen
no indication that a lot of them are actually bugs, but it's rather the
opposite, and it's rather noisy. It defines a good practice to follow ("if you
truly want to call a virtual function and you understand that no virtual
dispatch will happen, add an explicit qualifier"), but i feel uncomfy to force
this recommendation upon people by default. That's still a good check but
that's not a kind of thing that people ask for when they're using the analyzer.
Btw, this check could probably benefit from a fixit hint (which adds the
missing qualifier).
When the function is pure virtual, it's an immediate UB, so it's something we
can always warn about.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
