dblaikie added a comment. In D147844#4293743 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844#4293743>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D147844#4293693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844#4293693>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >>> I think some of the cases are ambiguous while others are not. >> >> Data would be good to have - if this assessment is true, we'd expect this to >> bear out in terms of bug finding, yeah? (that the cases you find to be >> ambiguous turn up as real bugs with some significant frequency in a >> codebase?) > > I disagree that there's a need for bugs to add this warning. Reading > ambiguous-but-correct code isn't going to be buggy, but it is going to cause > readability issues for any reviewers or maintainers. That's generally been the bar we use for evaluating warnings - does it find bugs. Especially because if it doesn't, it's unlikely to be turned on on large pre-existing codebases owing to the cost of cleaning them up with limited value in terms of improving readability but not finding any bugs. (& goes hand-in-hand with the general policy of not adding off-by-default warnings, because they don't get used much and come at a cost to clang's codebase (& some (death-by-a-thousand-cuts) cost to compile time performance, even when the warning is disabled)) Readability improvements that don't cross the threshold to be the cause of a significant number of bugs are moreso the domain of clang-tidy, not clang warnings. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
