On Oct 7, 2013, at 13:58, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm fine with this staying in the analyzer for now, unless David, Richard, or 
> Eli feel it should be a warning right away.
> 
> Do we have evidence that we want this? Does it catch bugs? If so, what do 
> they look like? It seems like this would trigger on legitimate code; how does 
> a user suppress the warning in that case, and does that suppression make 
> their code clearer?
> 
> What is the false/true positive ratio for bug finding here?
> 
> sizeof(expression) is a common idiom in SFINAE contexts. Is that covered here?
> 
> sizeof(sizeof(int)) is a "traditional" way to get sizeof(size_t). Why should 
> we warn on that?
> 
> And more as a general question than something specific to this patch: Is 
> there a region in the space of false positive ratios where we think a 
> syntactic warning should go into the static analyzer? If so, why? And what is 
> that region? I would have thought that the static analyzer, like the clang 
> warnings, would be aimed at (eventually) having a false positive ratio of 
> near zero. If so, then should we ever put a warning in the static analyzer if 
> it doesn't require the static analyzer's technology (or have a high runtime 
> cost)?

On this last (and bringing in Ted and Anna):

I think the main difference between compiler warnings and syntactic analyzer 
checks is that we try very hard to turn new compiler warnings on by default. A 
second-order effect of this is that we generally avoid style warnings. The 
analyzer can be a bit looser about this, though: because people know the 
analyzer is stricter and more in-depth, I think they might also accept that a 
particular check doesn't fit their project.

On the other hand, we still haven't gotten around to designing a proper bug 
tracking and/or manual suppression system, so that's one advantage of compiler 
warnings. And as you say, checks without a high runtime cost don't really have 
a technical reason to be in the analyzer.

Jordan
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to