danielmarjamaki added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13126#379306, @zaks.anna wrote:
> Why is there such a large jump in the number of warnings reported in the last > patch iteration? > It went from "1678 projects where scanned. In total I got 124 warnings" to > "In 2215 projects it found 875 warnings." Did the number of warnings in the > initial 1678 projects stay the same? No I improved the check. My previous patch was limited: I have limited this patch hoping that it will be easier to triage and review. Right now I only warn if there is assignment and RHS is a DeclRefExpr and only for loss of precision. > Is it possible to take a look at the nature of the false positives, as per > NoQ's request above? I'll try when I get some time. > This checker would benefit greatly from explaining why the errors occur. For > example, where the values of variables are being constrained. Other checkers > use BugReporterVisitor to generate the rich diagnostic information. Dow you > have plans on how to accomplish that for this checker? Yes that sounds like a good idea.. I''ll try to look at that. http://reviews.llvm.org/D13126 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
