alexfh added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18649#390862, @courbet wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18649#389363, @alexfh wrote: > > > Thank you for working on the new clang-tidy check! > > > > We usually recommend authors to run their checks on a large code base to > > ensure it doesn't crash and doesn't generate obvious false positives. It > > would be nice, if you could provide a quick summary of such a run (total > > number of hits, number of what seems to be a false positive in a sample of > > ~100). > > > The tool generated 20k positives on our codebase. On a sample of 100, there > are: > > - 8 instances of the same exact code structure that's just wrong: const > string var = FLAGS_some_flag + "some_sufix"; > - 8 false positives. > - 84 possible issues. (interestingly 6 of these are from premature use of > variations of "extern char* empty_string;" > > The false positives fall into 3 categories: > - 3 variations of: ``` extern int i; static const int* pi = &i; // diag ``` Should we warn at all when only an address of a global variable is used? > // Then pi is dereferenced later, once i is intialized. > Public example of this: > https://github.com/python-git/python/blob/py3k/Objects/dictobject.c#L2027 > > 2. 3 variations of: ``` // .h class A { static const int i = 42; }; // .cc > int A::i; // diag ``` Looks like we have all information to fix this kind of a false positive. > > > 3. 2 variations of: ``` // .h class A { static int i; static int j; }; // .cc > int A::i = 0; int A::j = i; // diag ``` ditto http://reviews.llvm.org/D18649 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
