Prazek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821#399079, @alexfh wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821#399064, @Prazek wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821#398843, @alexfh wrote: > > > > > BTW, why is the check in the 'modernize' module? It doesn't seem to make > > > anything more modern. I would guess, the pattern it detects is most > > > likely to result from a programming error. Also, the fix, though it > > > retains the behavior, has a high chance to be incorrect. Can you share > > > the results of running this check on LLVM? At least, how many problems it > > > found and how many times the suggested fix was correct. > > > > > > I'd suggest to move the check to `misc` or maybe it's time to create a > > > separate directory for checks targeting various bug-prone patterns. > > > > > > There were many places. > > > Would be nice, if you could tell the number and provide a list of locations. > Have any of these been fixed since then? No, I didn't know that I can do that - I always heard that I can't format code that I didn't change, so I though the same thing is here. I will try do post review of changes in clang/llvm soon. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
