aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71001#1769048 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001#1769048>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> In D71001#1769035 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001#1769035>, @Eugene.Zelenko > wrote: > > > > ASan can help debug this issue, and more. > > > > This is dynamic analysis, and detection of problem depends on test case. > > Detection of such problem during static analysis makes sense. > > > As is, this check targets a very narrow pattern, and is very easy to fool > with the same code split across multiple statements. I don't think it pulls > its weight. It's not uncommon to ask the author to run the check over several large corpora of code to see what the false positive and true positive rates are. Not finding any true positives may mean that the check needs a bit more justification (like publications talking about the issue, etc). Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
