aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39121#911745, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Hmm, this is a good point -- I was thinking of the generic +N case with the > original example, but with an explicit +1, you can't run into that situation > with Win32 APIs. I will think on this a bit further and report back when I > have a spare moment. I think I've convinced myself that because we're limiting this check to just +1 and not +N, the current approach is fine. We should leave in the parens-to-silence behavior and the existing fixit to move the addition to the result, but we don't need to call it out in the diagnostic text (the documentation should be sufficient). I would still appreciate verification that this doesn't have a high fp rate against some real world code bases just to be sure of my intuition. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39121 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
