Quuxplusone added a comment. The provided example (typoing "i" for "j") sounds like the sort of thing that PVS-Studio catches; maybe see what wording they use for that kind of mistake? Without investigating, I would suggest "cut-and-paste-error" or "likely-typo".
However, the attached patch *doesn't implement* the provided example diagnostic, so right now it's really hard to say what the intent of this patch *is*. It's hard to argue about whether the name "obvious-" is correct for this group of diagnostics when the group is, er, empty. I suggest that the way forward is to implement some of the intended diagnostics under an existing group and then later refactor them into a new group as needed; or else to implement so many of the intended diagnostics in *this* patch that the necessity for the new group is "obvious" :) to everyone involved. Coincidentally, I was just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY last night. I think it's applicable here. :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D27815 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
