aaron.ballman added a comment. In D65912#1623076 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65912#1623076>, @ZaMaZaN4iK wrote:
> @aaron.ballman Sure. I agree with you that epsilon should be configurable. I > think we can collect some statistics later. Now I am going to work on > implementation and tests. Later, of course, will be good to run the check on > some codebases. I will be happy to hear that we already have some > infrastructure for doing stuff like this. My point regarding statistics is that the check needs to pull its own weight -- if it doesn't find many true positives, it's not of much value to a broad community, or if it has a lot of false positives, we may need to tweak the check before releasing it to the public, etc. So definitely do the implementation work, but part of that work should be testing it over large code bases and reporting back the results. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65912/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65912 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
