NoQ accepted this revision. NoQ added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Yep, looks good. This limitation to `DeclRefExpr`s was super conservative. I'll follow up regarding the bugprone category in a week or so on the mailing lists. It's been a long-standing historical decision that the Analyzer, for the sake of good user experience, should only warn on real bugs and have low false positive rates, but there definitely is a desire for more advanced users to opt-in into reasonable lint / coding standard checks, so we really need some room for them, and a way of discriminating them from checks that are simply bad due to large amounts of inevitable false positives. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46081#1079231, @whisperity wrote: > While I understand extending the analyzer to cover more is a good approach, > there is `-Wconversion` which seemingly covers this -- or at least the > trivial case(?): Yeah, this check historically was an attempt on a quieter and at the same time more powerful alternative to `-Wconversion`. https://reviews.llvm.org/D46081 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
