faisalv added a comment. In D91651#2416423 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91651#2416423>, @thakis wrote:
> Do you have any numbers on false positives / true positives uncovered by this > tweak? That's a great question - and unfortunately not only do I have no hard data to support or discourage the addition of such a warning - I don't even know how some of those incredible folks (who make data based claims about programming smells and needs) gather such data (leave alone making sure the data is a representative sample for the "right" kind of programmers) - and would love to be shown how to run such studies :) > In general, warning at use time instead of at declaration time tends to be > much better for this rate, and we do this differently than gcc in several > instances, because the gcc way has so many false positives that it makes > warnings unusable, while warning on use makes the warning useful. So I'd like > to see a better justification than "gcc does it" :) Aah - i did not realize that it was a deliberate decision not to implement such a warning at definition time. My justification (asides from gcc being the light for us in dark places, when all other lights go out ;) for implementing a warning at definition time probably just stems from an instinctual preference for early diagnostics - i suppose there is no one size that fits all here - for e.g. some folks prefer run-time (duck-typing) operation checking vs compile-time checking, and others who prefer diagnosing fundamental issues with template-code when they are first parsed, as opposed to waiting for some instantiation - and then there is the entire C++0X concepts vs concepts-lite discussion ... So, since I feel I lack the authority to justify such a warning (asides from my ideological propensities) in the face of your valid concerns (either anecdotal or fueled by sufficient data) - I would prefer to defer to you and withdraw the patch :) (unless someone else feels they are able to provide justification that might resonate with you). Thanks for chiming in! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91651/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91651 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
