whisperity added a comment. In D74463#1888270 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74463#1888270>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I am also concerned about the false positives from this check because I don't > think there's going to be an easy heuristic for determining whether two > identifiers are "related" to one another. I agree, and this is an unfortunate thing, but I do not think there //could// be a sensible heuristic here. Unless we somehow flesh out D20689 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689> which uses name checks. (The two checks could actually complement each other - this one is for users who want to design their APIs defensively and want to see the changes during their code's evolution.) In D74463#1888270 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74463#1888270>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > There is no obvious way to silence any of the diagnostics generated as false > positives short of requiring a naming convention for users to follow, which > is not a particularly clean solution. There is, you decide not to enable the checker? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
