Prazek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821#402686, @Prazek wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821#398843, @alexfh wrote: > > > BTW, why is the check in the 'modernize' module? It doesn't seem to make > > anything more modern. I would guess, the pattern it detects is most likely > > to result from a programming error. Also, the fix, though it retains the > > behavior, has a high chance to be incorrect. Can you share the results of > > running this check on LLVM? At least, how many problems it found and how > > many times the suggested fix was correct. > > > > I'd suggest to move the check to `misc` or maybe it's time to create a > > separate directory for checks targeting various bug-prone patterns. > > > Do you have any thought about the name for such a module? I belive that misc > is overloaded. > > So for this we are looking for something that is probably not a bug, but it > makes code a little bit inaccurate > Maybe something like: > > - accuracy, > - correctness, > - certainity, > - safety, > - maybebugmaybenothardtosay after a long though I think that "accuracy" is the best name here - we want to look for a code that is valid, but not accurate http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
