In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528#182879, @alexfh wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528#182511, @danielmarjamaki wrote: > > > > Did you encounter any cases when the code broke after applying fixes? > > > > > > No I did not. The projects compiled fine after the fixes. > > > > > How many instances of the warning does the latest version of the check > > > produce on the same set of projects where you saw 47k warnings initially? > > > > > > I can't say exactly right now. It's a little less as far as I know. > > > > > I would also like to see an estimate of the false positive rate (from a > > > random sample of 100 warnings). > > > > > > I fixed 300 warnings with -fix and saw no compiler warnings. > > > > However I looked now at 100 random warnings and saw 5 fp (for type > > definitions)! I can try to write a heuristic for some of those. > > > So the incorrect fixes in these cases were applied, but the code still > compiled? Can you give a couple of examples? No. I only used -fix on the first 300 warnings in the results log I showed. There were no type definitions there. I believe all these 300 are true positives. I did not use -fix on the warnings I selected randomly. I do not think that 5% of the warnings are FP I just think that I was unlucky when I did my random selection. But through "bad luck" I believe I discovered some FP warnings that I should hide with a heuristic. http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
