whisperity added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53974#1294385, @ztamas wrote:
> I also tested on LLVm code. > The output is here: > https://gist.github.com/tzolnai/fe4f23031d3f9fdbdbf1ee38abda00a4 > > I found 362 warnings. > > Around 95% of these warnings are similar to the next example: > > /home/zolnai/lohome/llvm/lib/Support/Chrono.cpp:64:24: warning: loop > variable has narrower type 'unsigned int' than iteration's upper bound > 'size_t' (aka 'unsigned long') [bugprone-too-small-loop-variable] > for (unsigned I = 0; I < Style.size(); ++I) { > > > Where the loop variable has an `unsigned int` type while in the loop > condition it is compared with a container size which has `size_t` type. The > actual size method can be `std::string::length()` or `array_lengthof()` too. > > //[snip snip]// > > I can't see similar false positives what LibreOffice code produces. I am fairly concerned the example with unsigned use for container iteration are not false positives, just examples of bad happenstance code which never breaks under real life applications due to uint32_t being good enough but is actually not type-safe. Those examples that I kept in my quote are especially bad and should be fixed eventually... Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D53974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits