In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528#184237, @alexfh wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528#184221, @danielmarjamaki wrote: > > > I have scanned 100 projects with this checker today and got 42637 warnings. > > When comparing with the previous results, fp warnings for type definitions > > have been removed but no tp were removed. > > > This sounds interesting, but it would be nice to know how many warnings were > generated on the same code previously. Is there a large enough subset of the > projects you analyzed previously (the "193 debian projects") and now? I did not keep those original warnings. I can rerun the old patch again and that should generate very similar results but not identical. The packages I scan are continuously updated. > > To clarify, warnings are often duplicated when a there is a dangerous macro > > in a header that is reused from many files. So there are not 42637 unique > > warnings. > > > That doesn't make the stats more useful as well. Clang-tidy deduplicates > warnings on each run, but when multiple instances run, post-processing should > be done externally. Maybe you could use some grep|sort|uniq-foo to count just > the unique source locations? Having the output in the one line per warning > form would also allow to choose a random subset easily (shuf|head -n100). I will look into this. > > I have looked at > 100 warnings throughout the results file and dont see > > false positives. > > > That also sounds good. > > Can you fix the issues pointed out in earlier reviews as well? will do that. 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
