On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> @jordan_rose, I want this warning. Not sure about other people >> >> @gribozavr, earlier versions of this did trigger on LLVM and Clang. >> The warning has been fine-tuned since then to avoid those false positives. >> >> Also, I seemed to have messed up the indentation when I wrote the >> visitors for the first -Wloop-analysis warning and managed to copy the bad >> indentation over to this change. I will go fix them. > > > Does this find any other bugs (or false positives) in other code you've > run it on? > This has found 15-20 bugs so far, with 1-2 false positives. It is arguable that using (x+=2) in the loop header instead of two separate increments would be clearer for the code. > > >> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D628 >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
